What do you think?
Rate this book
The Open Society and its Enemies #1
The Open Society and Its Enemies - Volume One: The Spell of Plato
Popper was born in 1902 to a Viennese family of Jewish origin. He taught in Austria until 1937, when he emigrated to New Zealand in anticipation of the Nazi annexation of Austria the following year, and he settled in England in 1949. Before the annexation, Popper had written mainly about the philosophy of science, but from 1938 until the end of the Second World War he focused his energies on political philosophy, seeking to diagnose the intellectual origins of German and Soviet totalitarianism. The Open Society and Its Enemies was the result.
In the book, Popper condemned Plato, Marx, and Hegel as "holists" and "historicists"--a holist, according to Popper, believes that individuals are formed entirely by their social groups; historicists believe that social groups evolve according to internal principles that it is the intellectual's task to uncover. Popper, by contrast, held that social affairs are unpredictable, and argued vehemently against social engineering. He also sought to shift the focus of political philosophy away from questions about who ought to rule toward questions about how to minimize the damage done by the powerful. The book was an immediate sensation, and--though it has long been criticized for its portrayals of Plato, Marx, and Hegel--it has remained a landmark on the left and right alike for its defense of freedom and the spirit of critical inquiry.
In the book, Popper condemned Plato, Marx, and Hegel as "holists" and "historicists"--a holist, according to Popper, believes that individuals are formed entirely by their social groups; historicists believe that social groups evolve according to internal principles that it is the intellectual's task to uncover. Popper, by contrast, held that social affairs are unpredictable, and argued vehemently against social engineering. He also sought to shift the focus of political philosophy away from questions about who ought to rule toward questions about how to minimize the damage done by the powerful. The book was an immediate sensation, and--though it has long been criticized for its portrayals of Plato, Marx, and Hegel--it has remained a landmark on the left and right alike for its defense of freedom and the spirit of critical inquiry.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1945
About the author
Karl Popper
272 books1,531 followersSir Karl Raimund Popper, FRS, rose from a modest background as an assistant cabinet maker and school teacher to become one of the most influential theorists and leading philosophers. Popper commanded international audiences and conversation with him was an intellectual adventure—even if a little rough—animated by a myriad of philosophical problems. He contributed to a field of thought encompassing (among others) political theory, quantum mechanics, logic, scientific method and evolutionary theory.
Popper challenged some of the ruling orthodoxies of philosophy: logical positivism, Marxism, determinism and linguistic philosophy. He argued that there are no subject matters but only problems and our desire to solve them. He said that scientific theories cannot be verified but only tentatively refuted, and that the best philosophy is about profound problems, not word meanings. Isaiah Berlin rightly said that Popper produced one of the most devastating refutations of Marxism. Through his ideas Popper promoted a critical ethos, a world in which the give and take of debate is highly esteemed in the precept that we are all infinitely ignorant, that we differ only in the little bits of knowledge that we do have, and that with some co-operative effort we may get nearer to the truth.
Nearly every first-year philosophy student knows that Popper regarded his solutions to the problems of induction and the demarcation of science from pseudo-science as his greatest contributions. He is less known for the problems of verisimilitude, of probability (a life-long love of his), and of the relationship between the mind and body.
Popper was a Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the British Academy, and Membre de I'Institute de France. He was an Honorary member of the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics, King's College London, and of Darwin College Cambridge. He was awarded prizes and honours throughout the world, including the Austrian Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold, the Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association, and the Sonning Prize for merit in work which had furthered European civilization.
Karl Popper was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 and invested by her with the Insignia of a Companion of Honour in 1982.
(edited from http://www.tkpw.net/intro_popper/intr...)
Popper challenged some of the ruling orthodoxies of philosophy: logical positivism, Marxism, determinism and linguistic philosophy. He argued that there are no subject matters but only problems and our desire to solve them. He said that scientific theories cannot be verified but only tentatively refuted, and that the best philosophy is about profound problems, not word meanings. Isaiah Berlin rightly said that Popper produced one of the most devastating refutations of Marxism. Through his ideas Popper promoted a critical ethos, a world in which the give and take of debate is highly esteemed in the precept that we are all infinitely ignorant, that we differ only in the little bits of knowledge that we do have, and that with some co-operative effort we may get nearer to the truth.
Nearly every first-year philosophy student knows that Popper regarded his solutions to the problems of induction and the demarcation of science from pseudo-science as his greatest contributions. He is less known for the problems of verisimilitude, of probability (a life-long love of his), and of the relationship between the mind and body.
Popper was a Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the British Academy, and Membre de I'Institute de France. He was an Honorary member of the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics, King's College London, and of Darwin College Cambridge. He was awarded prizes and honours throughout the world, including the Austrian Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold, the Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association, and the Sonning Prize for merit in work which had furthered European civilization.
Karl Popper was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 and invested by her with the Insignia of a Companion of Honour in 1982.
(edited from http://www.tkpw.net/intro_popper/intr...)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews
January 5, 2022
Have you wondered what Plato was all about or had trouble reading through his lengthy works? Get this wonderful book where an outstanding author does the hard work for you, then lays out the gist of Plato's thoughts in clear, easily and quickly readable prose.
Behind our societies lie influential ideas, philosophies about the best way to organize humanity. In a few cases, the general public might be able to associate a person with an idea - Marx and communism, Jefferson and American democracy - but for the most part the philosophers whose thoughts deeply impact the way things are remain unknown. Too many think of philosophy as irrelevant to daily life; the verbose and complex musings of pointy headed intellectuals that have no impact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism are philosophies that have driven America into a ditch, yet few citizens would be able to say anything about what these two philosophies are about, who the proponents have been or how the philosophies came to be.
Ideas drive civilization. The only reason this is not clear to us is that we are concerned with the details of getting on with our lives. We're all deeply embedded in ideas made real whose lifetimes far exceed that of a human being. It's easy to have no perspective as we live out life under one system and know no other. Things appear the way they are with no alternative. This is a problem. If you don't know how something works, how can you begin to fix it? If you can't fix it, it deteriorates until tyranny and then revolution follow, bringing a new idea in on a tide of blood. Democracy in particular is a work always in progress. A democracy where the citizenry drops out, loses interest, becomes cynical, hands over power to the powerful who are more than willing to take it. But I am speaking of current events. To the book.
The ancient Greeks are acknowledged to be the founders of Western thought, the thought that comes down through history to the present day in America and Europe, and they put democracy into practice. One of these ancient Greeks, Socrates (d. 399 BCE), is a name most of us have heard as well as that of his pupil, Plato, and of Plato's pupil, Aristotle, who tutored Alexander the Great.
Plato, the founder of the first academy and a prolific writer, left his thoughts well documented. Our knowledge of Socrates comes mostly from Plato, who often in his writings put words into the mouth of Socrates in addition to detailing the Socratic method. Plato has never been far from the thoughts of the powerful in the Western world ever since.
Karl Popper writes his book (this one is part one of two) to warn us of the danger in Plato's thoughts, so widely venerated over the ages, as they are a prescription for totalitarianism, the enemy of the open society. The open society is one where individuals are free to determine their lives and to make their own decisions. The closed society is one where individual life is important only in how it contributes to the strength of the state. The closed society dictates to the individual a life with an assigned status and function.
Plato wrote at a time when Athens, a democracy, had recently been defeated by totalitarian Sparta in the 30 year Peloponnesian Wars. At this time of anxiety and insecurity, Plato, a sympathizer and admirer of Sparta, lays out a prescription for the ideal state in his Republic a work founded on the desire for stability and a fear of change. Plato, a pessimist, believed that there were perfect Ideas and Forms that, once put into use, could not help but degenerate from the originals. He seeks to hold back this degeneration as much as possible by the creation of a state that rejects change, demands adherence to order above all things, and forbids novelty which can only hasten decay.
Popper, drawing evidence from all of Plato's work, makes the case that the good of the state is what Plato considers to be justice. Humanity is to be divided up into the rulers, the guardians and the masses (including slaves) that are to stay in their places through the generations, all serving to maintain the stability of the state with no chance of moving from one class to another. Eugenics is to be used to keep the human stock from deteriorating. Lies to the public by the rulers are perfectly ok in the service of maintaining a national myth to rally around.
With thorough analysis and frequent quotes, Popper indicts Plato in his own words, stripping away the fog of veneration to reveal the harsh ideal that laid the foundation for the kind of thinking exemplified by that of Hitler's National Socialism. At the heart of Popper's work is his rejection of what he calls historicism, the idea that there is a historical tide in human events that dictates the future, that we are all floating on a sea of inevitable societal change that will take one form and then another heedless of the individuals that make up the mass, that there is a fate, a destiny to societies. Popper sees this as mythological nonsense, but immensely influential and quickly embraced by those thinkers who long for a structure underlying human existence, a meaning, a reason that makes sense of history and that allows prophecy.
I have long known of Popper as he is widely admired and quoted but never could get hold of his work. Public libraries don't have his books and only a nearby university library did. Thanks to Amazon I found used copies of The Open Society and Its Enemies for a pittance. What I have been missing! Volume II moves on from Plato to deal with Hegel and Marx to do the same with them - taking apart their grand designs to show the danger within. He mentions in volume II that to avoid a huge book on historicism through the ages he skipped over the long period between Plato and Hegel. I wish he hadn't because I would eagerly read it.
Behind our societies lie influential ideas, philosophies about the best way to organize humanity. In a few cases, the general public might be able to associate a person with an idea - Marx and communism, Jefferson and American democracy - but for the most part the philosophers whose thoughts deeply impact the way things are remain unknown. Too many think of philosophy as irrelevant to daily life; the verbose and complex musings of pointy headed intellectuals that have no impact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism are philosophies that have driven America into a ditch, yet few citizens would be able to say anything about what these two philosophies are about, who the proponents have been or how the philosophies came to be.
Ideas drive civilization. The only reason this is not clear to us is that we are concerned with the details of getting on with our lives. We're all deeply embedded in ideas made real whose lifetimes far exceed that of a human being. It's easy to have no perspective as we live out life under one system and know no other. Things appear the way they are with no alternative. This is a problem. If you don't know how something works, how can you begin to fix it? If you can't fix it, it deteriorates until tyranny and then revolution follow, bringing a new idea in on a tide of blood. Democracy in particular is a work always in progress. A democracy where the citizenry drops out, loses interest, becomes cynical, hands over power to the powerful who are more than willing to take it. But I am speaking of current events. To the book.
The ancient Greeks are acknowledged to be the founders of Western thought, the thought that comes down through history to the present day in America and Europe, and they put democracy into practice. One of these ancient Greeks, Socrates (d. 399 BCE), is a name most of us have heard as well as that of his pupil, Plato, and of Plato's pupil, Aristotle, who tutored Alexander the Great.
Plato, the founder of the first academy and a prolific writer, left his thoughts well documented. Our knowledge of Socrates comes mostly from Plato, who often in his writings put words into the mouth of Socrates in addition to detailing the Socratic method. Plato has never been far from the thoughts of the powerful in the Western world ever since.
Karl Popper writes his book (this one is part one of two) to warn us of the danger in Plato's thoughts, so widely venerated over the ages, as they are a prescription for totalitarianism, the enemy of the open society. The open society is one where individuals are free to determine their lives and to make their own decisions. The closed society is one where individual life is important only in how it contributes to the strength of the state. The closed society dictates to the individual a life with an assigned status and function.
Plato wrote at a time when Athens, a democracy, had recently been defeated by totalitarian Sparta in the 30 year Peloponnesian Wars. At this time of anxiety and insecurity, Plato, a sympathizer and admirer of Sparta, lays out a prescription for the ideal state in his Republic a work founded on the desire for stability and a fear of change. Plato, a pessimist, believed that there were perfect Ideas and Forms that, once put into use, could not help but degenerate from the originals. He seeks to hold back this degeneration as much as possible by the creation of a state that rejects change, demands adherence to order above all things, and forbids novelty which can only hasten decay.
Popper, drawing evidence from all of Plato's work, makes the case that the good of the state is what Plato considers to be justice. Humanity is to be divided up into the rulers, the guardians and the masses (including slaves) that are to stay in their places through the generations, all serving to maintain the stability of the state with no chance of moving from one class to another. Eugenics is to be used to keep the human stock from deteriorating. Lies to the public by the rulers are perfectly ok in the service of maintaining a national myth to rally around.
With thorough analysis and frequent quotes, Popper indicts Plato in his own words, stripping away the fog of veneration to reveal the harsh ideal that laid the foundation for the kind of thinking exemplified by that of Hitler's National Socialism. At the heart of Popper's work is his rejection of what he calls historicism, the idea that there is a historical tide in human events that dictates the future, that we are all floating on a sea of inevitable societal change that will take one form and then another heedless of the individuals that make up the mass, that there is a fate, a destiny to societies. Popper sees this as mythological nonsense, but immensely influential and quickly embraced by those thinkers who long for a structure underlying human existence, a meaning, a reason that makes sense of history and that allows prophecy.
I have long known of Popper as he is widely admired and quoted but never could get hold of his work. Public libraries don't have his books and only a nearby university library did. Thanks to Amazon I found used copies of The Open Society and Its Enemies for a pittance. What I have been missing! Volume II moves on from Plato to deal with Hegel and Marx to do the same with them - taking apart their grand designs to show the danger within. He mentions in volume II that to avoid a huge book on historicism through the ages he skipped over the long period between Plato and Hegel. I wish he hadn't because I would eagerly read it.
August 30, 2016
Popper's Open Society and its Enemies is devoted to a crushing polemic against Platonism. Plato's Republic is described as a detailed defense of what Popper calls "Closed Society", which is taken to be totalitarian in all its forms.
Platonism is hard to summarize concisely, but roughly amounts to an ontology (that is, the study of reality) which is grounded in the concept of the "form", that of an idealized and unchanging entity which is the pure, unadulterated essence of all objects in reality. Platonism then distinguishes right and wrong (deriving its ethics from an ontological basis) as being based in what is eternal, and what is subject to decay or corruption, as the eternal object most closely corresponds to its ontological form, and that which decays or is corrupt is constantly moving away from its form. Popper's argument is that Plato, in the Republic, says that forms of government which are directed and led by an educated minority of philosopher-kings, and in which there is no class stuggle because each caste, including that of slaves, knows it's place. Plato is shown to be arguing a form of reverse-evolution: that the justification for this position is the concept that all of society is a decayed version of a past, "golden" era. Popper refers to this position as "historicism", a yearning for the good old days when tyranny was just and slaves knew their place.
Contrast this work with George Soros' Open Society, and I am fascinated by the obvious parallel to Popper's analysis of the "Tyrant's successor problem". Soros' argument in Open Soiety is to expose the blind rhetoric of the cold war, whereby democracies such as the United States argued for years about the superiority of orderly democracy but then, after the fall of Communism, refuse to provide economic and military aid to the Balkan states and to Russia to help foster a nascent open society. Interestingly, he argues (to what appears to be a Clinton era government) that the role that the United States should take is one of "policeman to the world" (using that exact phrase). Interestingly, this is exactly the thing the Bush administration has been accused of being, and Soros had spent quite a fortune trying to prevent Bush from being re-elected last year.
The difference in treatment between teacher (Popper) and student (Soros) parallels in some ways the analysis Popper makes between teacher (Socrates) and student (Plato). For instance, Popper argues that Socrates criticizes democracy, but as an effort to improve it, and makes compelling arguments that Socrates believed in a form of egalitarianism/equalitarianism (for instance, proving that even a slave is capable of reason by teaching the Pythagorean theorem to a slave). Plato, on the other hand, rejects equal rights for people, and seeks to tear down democracy and restore the rule of the philosopher-king. Soros, while arguing often that his philosophy is at odds with his economic behavior, states that he is morally unobligated to invest consistent with his ethics as long as he obeys "the rules". Soros also makes clear the role of the "greater fool" in investing- that as long as you don't believe your own lies, you can make money on the upside while people believe you, and then as you prove yourself wrong, make money on the downside as others catch on. Popper seeks only philosophical ends, yet Soros seems to want the role of philosopher, and king (at least of markets). Popper argues that the Republic is a large argument why the people should make Plato himself the philosopher-king. Likewise, does it not seem that Soros' bullying to get western governments to "save the ruble" (which would have put money in his pocket) is just a philosophical dodge to make him ever-richer, and thus more powerful, in this society where economic might is the apparent source of political power?
Popper's most interesting but least developed point is one of the "paradox of democracy"- that given the choice to vote, people are free to vote in a tyrant. He argues that the system of democracy must be designed to prevent this from happening, but gives no clear reason as to the mechanism for this happening.
To my way of thinking, there are many tyrannies. First, a tyrant or totalitarian government with physical or political might can become sovereign and accrue power and wealth to themselves. Second, an oligarchy of tyrants can through economic might concentrate sovereignty among a upper-class minority. Third, a democracy can become a sovereign tyrant through majority rule- that a majority of citizens can enact rules which benefit the majority to the expense of the minority. The problem of tyranny in modern times has concentrated on the problem of the sovereign minority because this form has been the most common historical form of tyranny. However, as a swelling middle class and democratic institutions take hold, we must not only be vigilant against returning to the evil of the past, but also to be on guard for new forms and modes of the democratic tyranny.
Popper argues, somewhat naively, that a true democracy cannot become a tyranny, but seems to fall on his own sword in that he does not successfully define what a true democracy means. Soros argues against "market fundamentalism", the idea that free markets are an ethical end in themselves, and says that the state must regulate markets to prevent the rise of oligarchy or rule of the rich. Again, to this end, he states there must be a balance between state rule and state repression of markets, without clearly defining how this can be accomplished. Moreover, Soros is adept at continually proving himself wrong, aruing that this is a good sign since Popperian scientific method states that theories can never be proven correct, only incorrect.
To me, the hysteresis between continual tentative theories and their reversal/disproval in short order (which seems to be the end result of Popperian, Sorosian democracy) is no recipe for stable, successful, and ethical government. However, it would seem at some level this solution is very likely the worst, except for all the others. The poverty of philosophy is that is is inept at formulating solvable questions- what I wouldn't give for a new way of thinging about these things, such that answers were more achievable. It is ultimately this form of depression which leads to the root cause of the democratic paradox. People will always prefer a tyrant with apparent answers to everthing over the crushing indeterminism of true science.
Platonism is hard to summarize concisely, but roughly amounts to an ontology (that is, the study of reality) which is grounded in the concept of the "form", that of an idealized and unchanging entity which is the pure, unadulterated essence of all objects in reality. Platonism then distinguishes right and wrong (deriving its ethics from an ontological basis) as being based in what is eternal, and what is subject to decay or corruption, as the eternal object most closely corresponds to its ontological form, and that which decays or is corrupt is constantly moving away from its form. Popper's argument is that Plato, in the Republic, says that forms of government which are directed and led by an educated minority of philosopher-kings, and in which there is no class stuggle because each caste, including that of slaves, knows it's place. Plato is shown to be arguing a form of reverse-evolution: that the justification for this position is the concept that all of society is a decayed version of a past, "golden" era. Popper refers to this position as "historicism", a yearning for the good old days when tyranny was just and slaves knew their place.
Contrast this work with George Soros' Open Society, and I am fascinated by the obvious parallel to Popper's analysis of the "Tyrant's successor problem". Soros' argument in Open Soiety is to expose the blind rhetoric of the cold war, whereby democracies such as the United States argued for years about the superiority of orderly democracy but then, after the fall of Communism, refuse to provide economic and military aid to the Balkan states and to Russia to help foster a nascent open society. Interestingly, he argues (to what appears to be a Clinton era government) that the role that the United States should take is one of "policeman to the world" (using that exact phrase). Interestingly, this is exactly the thing the Bush administration has been accused of being, and Soros had spent quite a fortune trying to prevent Bush from being re-elected last year.
The difference in treatment between teacher (Popper) and student (Soros) parallels in some ways the analysis Popper makes between teacher (Socrates) and student (Plato). For instance, Popper argues that Socrates criticizes democracy, but as an effort to improve it, and makes compelling arguments that Socrates believed in a form of egalitarianism/equalitarianism (for instance, proving that even a slave is capable of reason by teaching the Pythagorean theorem to a slave). Plato, on the other hand, rejects equal rights for people, and seeks to tear down democracy and restore the rule of the philosopher-king. Soros, while arguing often that his philosophy is at odds with his economic behavior, states that he is morally unobligated to invest consistent with his ethics as long as he obeys "the rules". Soros also makes clear the role of the "greater fool" in investing- that as long as you don't believe your own lies, you can make money on the upside while people believe you, and then as you prove yourself wrong, make money on the downside as others catch on. Popper seeks only philosophical ends, yet Soros seems to want the role of philosopher, and king (at least of markets). Popper argues that the Republic is a large argument why the people should make Plato himself the philosopher-king. Likewise, does it not seem that Soros' bullying to get western governments to "save the ruble" (which would have put money in his pocket) is just a philosophical dodge to make him ever-richer, and thus more powerful, in this society where economic might is the apparent source of political power?
Popper's most interesting but least developed point is one of the "paradox of democracy"- that given the choice to vote, people are free to vote in a tyrant. He argues that the system of democracy must be designed to prevent this from happening, but gives no clear reason as to the mechanism for this happening.
To my way of thinking, there are many tyrannies. First, a tyrant or totalitarian government with physical or political might can become sovereign and accrue power and wealth to themselves. Second, an oligarchy of tyrants can through economic might concentrate sovereignty among a upper-class minority. Third, a democracy can become a sovereign tyrant through majority rule- that a majority of citizens can enact rules which benefit the majority to the expense of the minority. The problem of tyranny in modern times has concentrated on the problem of the sovereign minority because this form has been the most common historical form of tyranny. However, as a swelling middle class and democratic institutions take hold, we must not only be vigilant against returning to the evil of the past, but also to be on guard for new forms and modes of the democratic tyranny.
Popper argues, somewhat naively, that a true democracy cannot become a tyranny, but seems to fall on his own sword in that he does not successfully define what a true democracy means. Soros argues against "market fundamentalism", the idea that free markets are an ethical end in themselves, and says that the state must regulate markets to prevent the rise of oligarchy or rule of the rich. Again, to this end, he states there must be a balance between state rule and state repression of markets, without clearly defining how this can be accomplished. Moreover, Soros is adept at continually proving himself wrong, aruing that this is a good sign since Popperian scientific method states that theories can never be proven correct, only incorrect.
To me, the hysteresis between continual tentative theories and their reversal/disproval in short order (which seems to be the end result of Popperian, Sorosian democracy) is no recipe for stable, successful, and ethical government. However, it would seem at some level this solution is very likely the worst, except for all the others. The poverty of philosophy is that is is inept at formulating solvable questions- what I wouldn't give for a new way of thinging about these things, such that answers were more achievable. It is ultimately this form of depression which leads to the root cause of the democratic paradox. People will always prefer a tyrant with apparent answers to everthing over the crushing indeterminism of true science.
May 28, 2018
به حال افلاطون رقت میآرم که مجبور شد به جای تاسیسِ نخستین حکومتِ تمامتوتالیترِ فلسفی، به تاسیسِ نخستین کرسیِ تدریس فلسفه قناعت کنه.
February 22, 2016
An incredible work on Plato yielding one of the most important interpretations of his philosophy of all time. We tend to idealize the great Athenian philosopher but Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, sets the record straight with this scathing indictment of his philosophy and its cruel implications. Plato, necessarily was an enemy of democracy due to his best friend and tutor Socrates having been democratically elected to be executed. He fought through his philosophy to restrain such a system from existing and established classes which are akin to the Feudal System of the Middle Ages. He was certainly an enemy of the Open Society, who believed it just to have classes remain where they are. Here is Karl Popper's lasting quote:
"What we want is to moralize politics and not politicize morals." - Karl Popper.
"What we want is to moralize politics and not politicize morals." - Karl Popper.
March 22, 2016
"إن حضارتنا إذا ما أريد لها أن تبقى وتستمر، فينبغي أن تقلع عن عادة الدفاع الأعمى عن أولئك المفكرين العظماء. فهؤلاء الرجال العظماء ليسوا معصومين من الخطأ."
-كارل بوبر
يعد هذا الكتاب مدخلاً نقدياً لفلسفة السياسة والتاريخ.، وهو فحص لمبادىء إعادة البناء الاجتماعي من أفلاطون بوصفه "الفيلسوف المقدس" . ووصولاً إلى الذين يشعلون الحروب، مروراً بالماركسية والهيغلية وغيرها من الفلسفات الشمولية المغلقة.
وبتصنيف بوبر لتاريخ التطور الثقافي للإنسان إلى مرحلة قبلية هي مرحلة ما قبل الإغريق، والمرحلة الحضارية مع الإغريق فإنه يعتبر أن فلسفة أفلاطون تمثل مرحلة النزعة القب��ية وأنها ردة فعل معاكسة على حالة المدنية الحضارية التي سادت مدن الإغريق لهذا يعتبر بوبر تكرار هذه الفلسفة واستمرارها كارثة على الإنسانية .*
يتَّبع بوبر من خلال الكتاب التحليل المنهجي للتاريخانية كما يستند على أسس / نهج الفلسفة الاجتماعية "الهندسة الاجتماعية المتدرجة" على وجه التحديد كطريق وسياسة للإصلاح الاجتماعي والمجتمعي . حيث ينتقد بوبر الهندسة اليوتيوبية إذ أنها تدعي التخطيط العقلاني لكل المجتمع. و لأنه من الصعوبة بمكان أن يؤدي أي فعل اجتماعي النتيجة المتوقعة بالضبط . كما يصوغ الفكر الاجتماعي معتمداً على تقانة الاستقراء و التحليل، و التركيب والتجريب .
ينتقد بوبر علم الاجتماع الوصفي عند أفلاطون، الذي يعتبره واضع أول النظم الاجتماعية الطوباوية في كتابه ( الجمهورية ) والمنظر الفلسفي الأول للشمولية قبل هيغل وماركس بتناول نظرياته/ فلسفته الاجتماعية والسياسية، ورؤيته للمجتمع والدولة ووضع / موقع الفرد منها، وما يؤسس لتحقيق الحرية والمساواة ومدى تحققها ( نظرية الصور أو المثل - والمدينة الفاضلة) . وعلى وجه التحديد رؤيته لنظرية العقد الاجتماعي، ونظرته للدولة كإنسان فوق العادة، أي رؤيته للنظرية البيولوجية أو العضوية للدولة.
تعتمد الأهداف السياسية لأفلاطون بشكل كبير على مذاهبه التاريخية :
أولى أهدافه الهروب من التدفق الهيراقليطي والذي يعبر عن نفسه في الثورة الاجتماعية والانحطاط التاريخي. ثانياً يعتقد أن هذا يمكن إتمامه عن طريق تشييد مدينة فاضلة محكمة . ثالثاً: يعتقد أن نموذج مدينته الفاضلة وجد من فجر التاريخ؛ أي لوكان العالم يتحلل مع الزمن إذن لوجدنا الكمال يزداد كلما عدنا أكثر صوب الماضي. فالمدينة الفاضلة شيء يشبه السلف الأول، الأب الأول للمدن المتأخرة . وماهو صحيح لفلسفته في المدينة يمكن أن يمتد إلى فلسفته ��لعامة عن " كل شيء"، على نظريته في الصور أو المثل .
وبسبب كفايتها الذاتية تبدو الدولة المثالية لأفلاطون كفردٍ كامل، وبناءً عليه فإن المواطن الفرد إنما هو نسخة غير كاملة للدولة، وهو نوع من النسخ غير الكامل لها.
فالبنسبة لأفلاطون الفرد أدنى من الدولة . حيث مصلحة الدولة تسيطر على حياة المواطن من المهد إلى اللحد.
يقول أفلاطون:
" أنت خلقت من أجل الكل ، ولم يخلق الكل من أجلك"
و كذا عنصر النزعة الطبيعية البيولوجية، وهي عدم المساواة الطبيعية بين البشر./
التقسيم بين الحكام والمحكومين ، والذي يستند على عدم المساواة الطبيعية بين السادة والعبيد، بين الحكيم والجاهل . ( التميز بين الانتظامات العرفية.)
" وهكذا نبلّغ بأن الإنسان على الرغم من أنه واحد في الظاهر، إلا أنه في حقيقة الأمر متعدد... وعلى الرغم من أن المصلحة المشتركة الكاملة متعددة في الظاهر، إلا أنها في حقيقة الأمر واحدة." جروت
لقد نجح أفلاطون في إعادة بناء مجتمع قبلي وحقيقي بشكل مدهش على الرغم من أنه مثالي بعض الشيء .
وما قلل من إنجازاته هو بغضه الشديد للمجتمع الذي كان يعيش فيه، وحبه الرومانتيكي للشكل القبلي للحياة الاجتماعية .وهو الاتجاه الذي أدى لصياغة قانون للتطور التاريخي الذي لا يمكن تأييده، أي قانون الفساد والانحلال الكلي. وهو نفس الاتجاه المسؤول أيضاً عن العناصر الغير العقلانية، والوهمية ، والرومانتيكية التي لو لاها لكان تحليله ممتازا ً.
و كما يرى بوبر كذلك ان اهتمام أفلاطون الشخصي وتحيزه هما اللذان شحذا بصيرته، وبالتالي جعلا إنجازاته ممكنة. فهو قد اشتق نظريته التاريخانية من مذهب فلسفي خيالي يذهب إلى أن تغير العالم المنظور ماهو الا نسخة باهتة من عالم ثابت غير منظور.
كما أوضح بوبر النزعة الاستبدادية لدى أفلاطون وضعف نظريته الإنسانية للعدالة التي شخصها بوبر استناداً على مطالب واقتراحات النظرية الإنسانية للعدالة والتي يرى بوبر أن أفلاطون نقض في كل مرة مبادئها؛ على سبيل المثال في نظريته الخاصة (الجمهورية ) والتي كانت كما يرى رداً إلى حد كبير على التحدي القوي للنزعة المساواتية والإنسانية الجديدة، حيث أن الحركة المساواتية كما عرفها أفلاطون تمثلت في ما كان يكره . وليس ذلك فحسب فإنها ( الجمهورية) طورت مذهباً جديداً للعدالة ليس متنافراً مع النزعة الفردية فحسب ، وإنما عدائي تماماً تجاهها . كما أن الدستور الأخلاقي عند أفلاطون نفعي تماماً ، إنه دستور النفعية الجمعية أو السياسية. إذ إن معيار الأخلاق هو مصلحة الدولة. فالأخلاق ليست سوى قانون الصحة السياسي .
"على الرغم من جودة التشخيص الاجتماعي لدى أفلاطون، فإن تطوره أثبت أن العلاج الذي أوصى به أسوأ من الشر الذي أراد محاربته"
-كارل بوبر
في رؤيته / مبادئه النظرية للسياسة تعد نظرية السيادة عند أفلاطون في موقف ضعيف ، من الناحيتين الإمبيريقية والمنطقية معاً. حيث اتسم برنامجه السياسي بأنه شمولي صرف، ويستند على نزعة تاريخانية.
"يحلم كل من أفلاطون وماركس بالثورة الكشفية النبوئية التي ستغير من شكل العالم الاجتماعي كله. وهذا الشمول، وهذه الراديكالية الصارمة للمداخلة الأفلاطونية ( والماركسية بالمثل)، مرتبطة، في ما أعتقد بنزعتها الجمالية، أي بالرغبة في بناء عالم ليس فقط أفضل قليلاً أو أكثر عقلانية من عالمنا، بل متحرراً من كل بشاعته."
-كارل بوبر.
من أهم اعتراضات بوبر على فلسفة أفلاطون هي تهميش الفرد والحرية الفردية التي يجب أن تكون فوق كل شيء ؛ فوق الدولة/ ( أي بنى أو نظم كلية). والكف عن عقلنة الخوف!
إن الانتقال من المجتمع المغلق إلى المجتمع المفتوح من أكثر الثورات البشرية عمقاً " هو التفكير المتحرر من الهواجس السحرية"، حيث هيجت قريحة الإنسان النقدية والحسية ليعيد قراءة الوقائع و المتغيرات الراهنة بالواقع الاجتماعي، قراءة فاحصة ومجردة من المسلمات. كما خلق نوع من الخلخلة الفكرية والصفية محدثاً توتراً اجتماعياً نتيجة التغيّر الاجتماعي المحسوس والملموس حساً وفكراً ما جعل الفرد قاب قوسين أو أدنى من الانهيار والخصوع لتيّار الرجعي. هي البوادر الأولى من نوع جديد من القلق، والإحساس المرهف بتوتر الحضارة الناتج عن انهيار المجتمع المغلق. سعياً إلى العقلانية والاهتمام بأنفسنا وقبول المسؤوليات والتحرر من مكبوتاتنا. من أجل الأمان والحرية معاً ومن أجل الإنسان.
الإنسانية ثم الإنسانية ثم الإنسانية..!
-كارل بوبر
يعد هذا الكتاب مدخلاً نقدياً لفلسفة السياسة والتاريخ.، وهو فحص لمبادىء إعادة البناء الاجتماعي من أفلاطون بوصفه "الفيلسوف المقدس" . ووصولاً إلى الذين يشعلون الحروب، مروراً بالماركسية والهيغلية وغيرها من الفلسفات الشمولية المغلقة.
وبتصنيف بوبر لتاريخ التطور الثقافي للإنسان إلى مرحلة قبلية هي مرحلة ما قبل الإغريق، والمرحلة الحضارية مع الإغريق فإنه يعتبر أن فلسفة أفلاطون تمثل مرحلة النزعة القب��ية وأنها ردة فعل معاكسة على حالة المدنية الحضارية التي سادت مدن الإغريق لهذا يعتبر بوبر تكرار هذه الفلسفة واستمرارها كارثة على الإنسانية .*
يتَّبع بوبر من خلال الكتاب التحليل المنهجي للتاريخانية كما يستند على أسس / نهج الفلسفة الاجتماعية "الهندسة الاجتماعية المتدرجة" على وجه التحديد كطريق وسياسة للإصلاح الاجتماعي والمجتمعي . حيث ينتقد بوبر الهندسة اليوتيوبية إذ أنها تدعي التخطيط العقلاني لكل المجتمع. و لأنه من الصعوبة بمكان أن يؤدي أي فعل اجتماعي النتيجة المتوقعة بالضبط . كما يصوغ الفكر الاجتماعي معتمداً على تقانة الاستقراء و التحليل، و التركيب والتجريب .
ينتقد بوبر علم الاجتماع الوصفي عند أفلاطون، الذي يعتبره واضع أول النظم الاجتماعية الطوباوية في كتابه ( الجمهورية ) والمنظر الفلسفي الأول للشمولية قبل هيغل وماركس بتناول نظرياته/ فلسفته الاجتماعية والسياسية، ورؤيته للمجتمع والدولة ووضع / موقع الفرد منها، وما يؤسس لتحقيق الحرية والمساواة ومدى تحققها ( نظرية الصور أو المثل - والمدينة الفاضلة) . وعلى وجه التحديد رؤيته لنظرية العقد الاجتماعي، ونظرته للدولة كإنسان فوق العادة، أي رؤيته للنظرية البيولوجية أو العضوية للدولة.
تعتمد الأهداف السياسية لأفلاطون بشكل كبير على مذاهبه التاريخية :
أولى أهدافه الهروب من التدفق الهيراقليطي والذي يعبر عن نفسه في الثورة الاجتماعية والانحطاط التاريخي. ثانياً يعتقد أن هذا يمكن إتمامه عن طريق تشييد مدينة فاضلة محكمة . ثالثاً: يعتقد أن نموذج مدينته الفاضلة وجد من فجر التاريخ؛ أي لوكان العالم يتحلل مع الزمن إذن لوجدنا الكمال يزداد كلما عدنا أكثر صوب الماضي. فالمدينة الفاضلة شيء يشبه السلف الأول، الأب الأول للمدن المتأخرة . وماهو صحيح لفلسفته في المدينة يمكن أن يمتد إلى فلسفته ��لعامة عن " كل شيء"، على نظريته في الصور أو المثل .
وبسبب كفايتها الذاتية تبدو الدولة المثالية لأفلاطون كفردٍ كامل، وبناءً عليه فإن المواطن الفرد إنما هو نسخة غير كاملة للدولة، وهو نوع من النسخ غير الكامل لها.
فالبنسبة لأفلاطون الفرد أدنى من الدولة . حيث مصلحة الدولة تسيطر على حياة المواطن من المهد إلى اللحد.
يقول أفلاطون:
" أنت خلقت من أجل الكل ، ولم يخلق الكل من أجلك"
و كذا عنصر النزعة الطبيعية البيولوجية، وهي عدم المساواة الطبيعية بين البشر./
التقسيم بين الحكام والمحكومين ، والذي يستند على عدم المساواة الطبيعية بين السادة والعبيد، بين الحكيم والجاهل . ( التميز بين الانتظامات العرفية.)
" وهكذا نبلّغ بأن الإنسان على الرغم من أنه واحد في الظاهر، إلا أنه في حقيقة الأمر متعدد... وعلى الرغم من أن المصلحة المشتركة الكاملة متعددة في الظاهر، إلا أنها في حقيقة الأمر واحدة." جروت
لقد نجح أفلاطون في إعادة بناء مجتمع قبلي وحقيقي بشكل مدهش على الرغم من أنه مثالي بعض الشيء .
وما قلل من إنجازاته هو بغضه الشديد للمجتمع الذي كان يعيش فيه، وحبه الرومانتيكي للشكل القبلي للحياة الاجتماعية .وهو الاتجاه الذي أدى لصياغة قانون للتطور التاريخي الذي لا يمكن تأييده، أي قانون الفساد والانحلال الكلي. وهو نفس الاتجاه المسؤول أيضاً عن العناصر الغير العقلانية، والوهمية ، والرومانتيكية التي لو لاها لكان تحليله ممتازا ً.
و كما يرى بوبر كذلك ان اهتمام أفلاطون الشخصي وتحيزه هما اللذان شحذا بصيرته، وبالتالي جعلا إنجازاته ممكنة. فهو قد اشتق نظريته التاريخانية من مذهب فلسفي خيالي يذهب إلى أن تغير العالم المنظور ماهو الا نسخة باهتة من عالم ثابت غير منظور.
كما أوضح بوبر النزعة الاستبدادية لدى أفلاطون وضعف نظريته الإنسانية للعدالة التي شخصها بوبر استناداً على مطالب واقتراحات النظرية الإنسانية للعدالة والتي يرى بوبر أن أفلاطون نقض في كل مرة مبادئها؛ على سبيل المثال في نظريته الخاصة (الجمهورية ) والتي كانت كما يرى رداً إلى حد كبير على التحدي القوي للنزعة المساواتية والإنسانية الجديدة، حيث أن الحركة المساواتية كما عرفها أفلاطون تمثلت في ما كان يكره . وليس ذلك فحسب فإنها ( الجمهورية) طورت مذهباً جديداً للعدالة ليس متنافراً مع النزعة الفردية فحسب ، وإنما عدائي تماماً تجاهها . كما أن الدستور الأخلاقي عند أفلاطون نفعي تماماً ، إنه دستور النفعية الجمعية أو السياسية. إذ إن معيار الأخلاق هو مصلحة الدولة. فالأخلاق ليست سوى قانون الصحة السياسي .
"على الرغم من جودة التشخيص الاجتماعي لدى أفلاطون، فإن تطوره أثبت أن العلاج الذي أوصى به أسوأ من الشر الذي أراد محاربته"
-كارل بوبر
في رؤيته / مبادئه النظرية للسياسة تعد نظرية السيادة عند أفلاطون في موقف ضعيف ، من الناحيتين الإمبيريقية والمنطقية معاً. حيث اتسم برنامجه السياسي بأنه شمولي صرف، ويستند على نزعة تاريخانية.
"يحلم كل من أفلاطون وماركس بالثورة الكشفية النبوئية التي ستغير من شكل العالم الاجتماعي كله. وهذا الشمول، وهذه الراديكالية الصارمة للمداخلة الأفلاطونية ( والماركسية بالمثل)، مرتبطة، في ما أعتقد بنزعتها الجمالية، أي بالرغبة في بناء عالم ليس فقط أفضل قليلاً أو أكثر عقلانية من عالمنا، بل متحرراً من كل بشاعته."
-كارل بوبر.
من أهم اعتراضات بوبر على فلسفة أفلاطون هي تهميش الفرد والحرية الفردية التي يجب أن تكون فوق كل شيء ؛ فوق الدولة/ ( أي بنى أو نظم كلية). والكف عن عقلنة الخوف!
إن الانتقال من المجتمع المغلق إلى المجتمع المفتوح من أكثر الثورات البشرية عمقاً " هو التفكير المتحرر من الهواجس السحرية"، حيث هيجت قريحة الإنسان النقدية والحسية ليعيد قراءة الوقائع و المتغيرات الراهنة بالواقع الاجتماعي، قراءة فاحصة ومجردة من المسلمات. كما خلق نوع من الخلخلة الفكرية والصفية محدثاً توتراً اجتماعياً نتيجة التغيّر الاجتماعي المحسوس والملموس حساً وفكراً ما جعل الفرد قاب قوسين أو أدنى من الانهيار والخصوع لتيّار الرجعي. هي البوادر الأولى من نوع جديد من القلق، والإحساس المرهف بتوتر الحضارة الناتج عن انهيار المجتمع المغلق. سعياً إلى العقلانية والاهتمام بأنفسنا وقبول المسؤوليات والتحرر من مكبوتاتنا. من أجل الأمان والحرية معاً ومن أجل الإنسان.
الإنسانية ثم الإنسانية ثم الإنسانية..!
June 26, 2017
A strong and convincing analysis of Plato's conception of the perfect state as a foundations for totalitarianism.
Plato thought that there exists a transcendental world, full of perfect Forms or Ideas of every sensible thing in our own world. So there exist conceptions of the Perfect State and the Perfect Man - Plato uses these to build his own ideal state. This a state that arrests change and fights the constant degeneration inherent in our cosmos. In doing so, Plato makes every individual subservient to the state and pleads for eugenics, infanticide, and autocratic leadership (of course by philosopher-warriors).
Only philosophers over the age of 50 and with knowledge of this perfect, transcendental world can lead this society. They are the ones who decide who breeds with whom, who is worhty of becoming one of the future leaders and who lie and deceive to keep the masses in check. Unity in the ruling elite is the main purpose of this system - this keeps the perfect state perfect; all change is degeneration.
I think Popper's analysis of Plato's ideas is mostly valid, especially the connection between contemporary events (the Pelopponesian war, the rise of democracy, the betrayal of Athenian oligarchs, etc.) and Plato's longing for a tribal society à la Sparta. Popper refutes almost all counterarguments convincingly and build his own case with care.
On a personal note: I have always disliked Plato's philosophy, especially the notion of this perfect world with all the perfect forms (smacks too much of monotheism; Nietzsche's 'hintlerweltlerei'). I am therefore glad to have read this rational critique of Plato's ideas and their implications.
Plato thought that there exists a transcendental world, full of perfect Forms or Ideas of every sensible thing in our own world. So there exist conceptions of the Perfect State and the Perfect Man - Plato uses these to build his own ideal state. This a state that arrests change and fights the constant degeneration inherent in our cosmos. In doing so, Plato makes every individual subservient to the state and pleads for eugenics, infanticide, and autocratic leadership (of course by philosopher-warriors).
Only philosophers over the age of 50 and with knowledge of this perfect, transcendental world can lead this society. They are the ones who decide who breeds with whom, who is worhty of becoming one of the future leaders and who lie and deceive to keep the masses in check. Unity in the ruling elite is the main purpose of this system - this keeps the perfect state perfect; all change is degeneration.
I think Popper's analysis of Plato's ideas is mostly valid, especially the connection between contemporary events (the Pelopponesian war, the rise of democracy, the betrayal of Athenian oligarchs, etc.) and Plato's longing for a tribal society à la Sparta. Popper refutes almost all counterarguments convincingly and build his own case with care.
On a personal note: I have always disliked Plato's philosophy, especially the notion of this perfect world with all the perfect forms (smacks too much of monotheism; Nietzsche's 'hintlerweltlerei'). I am therefore glad to have read this rational critique of Plato's ideas and their implications.
January 12, 2013
Popper's anti-Platonist tract is slander from start to finish; the book that inspired Ronald Levinson to write a 645 page rebuttal (In Defense of Plato). In much of Popper's writing he is a fitting follower of Sextus Empiricus, but here, in a perhaps-understandable post-Hitler and post-Stalin rage, he descends to dogmatic fiction. For example, on the very first page Popper counter-poses two quotes, one from Pericles that "Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it" to a passage from the Republic that says ". . . . to his leader he shall direct his eye and follow him faithfully." The second passage that he is quoting comes from a reference to military discipline, but Popper quotes it as if it were a general recommendation for political organization. It gets not much better from here.
April 1, 2012
This is one of the most important books written in the 20th century, taken with its second volume - a searching analysis of the modes of thinking of "development" that takes in Plato, Hegel, and Marx. The best edition is this one, that keeps more detailed analysis in wee tiny print in appendices - but be sure to get the full Monty as much of this is fascinating.
People have tried to defend Plato against Popper's savage attack on his political theories, but it's pretty hard really. Plato was politically very conservative, a defender of autocracy and worse in real life and a theorist of its defence. Because of his defence of Socrates he seems to be a defender of freedom, but this really isn't so - the implied criticism in Plato's defence of Socrates was of democracy, not the right of free speech.
Popper made it clear that outside the arena of politics he admired Plato, and so do I. The Symposium is a great dialogue that awakens our sense of what it is to love and if Plato's idea that we should love the idea more than another human being opens the doors to later tyrrany (it does), it is nonetheless a beautiful work. But the politics - ugh, and Popper does a demolition job that was long overdue.
People have tried to defend Plato against Popper's savage attack on his political theories, but it's pretty hard really. Plato was politically very conservative, a defender of autocracy and worse in real life and a theorist of its defence. Because of his defence of Socrates he seems to be a defender of freedom, but this really isn't so - the implied criticism in Plato's defence of Socrates was of democracy, not the right of free speech.
Popper made it clear that outside the arena of politics he admired Plato, and so do I. The Symposium is a great dialogue that awakens our sense of what it is to love and if Plato's idea that we should love the idea more than another human being opens the doors to later tyrrany (it does), it is nonetheless a beautiful work. But the politics - ugh, and Popper does a demolition job that was long overdue.
December 30, 2014
ينتقد كارل بوبر في كتابه " المجتمع المفتوح وأعداؤه - الجزء الأول ) نظريات الفيلسوف أفلاطون السياسية ، حيث يوضح موقف أفلاطون من الديموقراطية .. ورغم نقد أفلاطون للإستبداد السياسي إلا أن بوبر وصف برنامج أفلاطون السياسي بالأستبداد الخالص ..
ويقول بوبر " غالباً ما تدعي النزعة الإستبدادية حبها للحرية " الحقة " ، وثناء أفلاطون على الحرية كمقابل للطغيان يحمل تماماً نبرة ذلك الحب المزعوم " ..
ويقول بوبر " غالباً ما تدعي النزعة الإستبدادية حبها للحرية " الحقة " ، وثناء أفلاطون على الحرية كمقابل للطغيان يحمل تماماً نبرة ذلك الحب المزعوم " ..
July 30, 2020
Popper severely criticizes Plato for his totalitarianism. The Republic, the Laws, and the Statesman are designed to put a divine system in this world. Except for the Philosopher-King, whose job it was to provide vision-order-stability, Plato shuts down reason for others. Everyone has a place. For most, this is to be on the receiving end of orders and direction. It is a closed system, as opposed to the vision of what Popper calls the Great Generation – Pericles and especially, Socrates, whose task it was to tackle ignorance, to question everything and to employ reason in the search for truth. For Popper, Socrates was a voice for democratic values and independent thinking that stood in stark contrast with the top-down approach advanced by his pupil Plato. Socrates was the icon of the Open Society and Plato was its greatest opponent.
Popper sees Plato as a political philosopher but Plato is first and foremost a religious figure who is preoccupied with the eternal world of Forms.* It’s not that Popper is wrong in his characterization of Plato’s closed system. But Plato’s motivation went much deeper than what Popper emphasizes. The reason for Plato’s totalitarian system was to impose a divine vision and to deliver the world from imperfection and flux.**
In my view, Popper is wrong in his argument that Socrates was the philosopher of the Open Society. The dialogues reveal Socrates as an agenda-driven figure. He was the obnoxious guy you don’t want to be in the same room with. His famed “dialogic” mode of conversation was to point out the flaws in what others put forward and to show, eristically, that his (Socrates’) view was by default the correct way to think.*** Socrates talked about worldly things but always from a background that suggested he was all about reason and truth. And what might reason and truth be? It was Plato’s Good-to-be, the divine world, as accessed by Reason. It was the Good and Reason of the Neoplatonists and later, Plato’s philosophical theology as revived by Italian Renaissance figures. ****
Popper argues that Plato betrayed Socrates’ humanitarian impulses. How Popper comes to this conclusion is a mystery other than taking at face value the common view, still persisting, that Socrates was (a) against ignorance, (b) for truth, (c) for reason, and (d) for dialogue. And (e) he was willing to die for his beliefs. Why there is a Plato-Socrates distinction is not clear. Jowett advises that one needs to read each dialogue within the context of others. It is a metaphysical whole. Socrates dominates many of the dialogues and presumably reflects what Plato was after – ignorance was about a this-world reality. Truth was about a divine-eternal world and reason via a one-way dialogue was the vehicle to get there. It was anything but a this-world truth. Socrates was Jesus before his time. Socrates didn’t die on the cross but he did take the poison. And then he did his Platonic ascension to the non-world of the Divine.
Popper is heavy on textual analysis. The book itself is full of this, but the footnotes are a book in themselves.
* An argument also can be made that Plato’s thought was informed by notions from the Vedic world via ancient trading routes between Greece and what is now India-Pakistan.
**Was Plato the first evangelical whose lineage can be traced to the Christians of today who want God’s kingdom on Earth?
***Ironically, the opponents to Socrates, the Sophists, did Popper’s work of social engineering – of using reason to solve everyday problems to make the world a better place. Yes, as now, there are the salesmen. But Protagoras seemed to be more about being reasonable than not, and he was void of Socrates’ ideological approach.
**** The Italian Renaissance figures who revived Plato for Western Philosophy are covered in my review of Will Durant’s Volume V, History of Civilization: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Popper sees Plato as a political philosopher but Plato is first and foremost a religious figure who is preoccupied with the eternal world of Forms.* It’s not that Popper is wrong in his characterization of Plato’s closed system. But Plato’s motivation went much deeper than what Popper emphasizes. The reason for Plato’s totalitarian system was to impose a divine vision and to deliver the world from imperfection and flux.**
In my view, Popper is wrong in his argument that Socrates was the philosopher of the Open Society. The dialogues reveal Socrates as an agenda-driven figure. He was the obnoxious guy you don’t want to be in the same room with. His famed “dialogic” mode of conversation was to point out the flaws in what others put forward and to show, eristically, that his (Socrates’) view was by default the correct way to think.*** Socrates talked about worldly things but always from a background that suggested he was all about reason and truth. And what might reason and truth be? It was Plato’s Good-to-be, the divine world, as accessed by Reason. It was the Good and Reason of the Neoplatonists and later, Plato’s philosophical theology as revived by Italian Renaissance figures. ****
Popper argues that Plato betrayed Socrates’ humanitarian impulses. How Popper comes to this conclusion is a mystery other than taking at face value the common view, still persisting, that Socrates was (a) against ignorance, (b) for truth, (c) for reason, and (d) for dialogue. And (e) he was willing to die for his beliefs. Why there is a Plato-Socrates distinction is not clear. Jowett advises that one needs to read each dialogue within the context of others. It is a metaphysical whole. Socrates dominates many of the dialogues and presumably reflects what Plato was after – ignorance was about a this-world reality. Truth was about a divine-eternal world and reason via a one-way dialogue was the vehicle to get there. It was anything but a this-world truth. Socrates was Jesus before his time. Socrates didn’t die on the cross but he did take the poison. And then he did his Platonic ascension to the non-world of the Divine.
Popper is heavy on textual analysis. The book itself is full of this, but the footnotes are a book in themselves.
* An argument also can be made that Plato’s thought was informed by notions from the Vedic world via ancient trading routes between Greece and what is now India-Pakistan.
**Was Plato the first evangelical whose lineage can be traced to the Christians of today who want God’s kingdom on Earth?
***Ironically, the opponents to Socrates, the Sophists, did Popper’s work of social engineering – of using reason to solve everyday problems to make the world a better place. Yes, as now, there are the salesmen. But Protagoras seemed to be more about being reasonable than not, and he was void of Socrates’ ideological approach.
**** The Italian Renaissance figures who revived Plato for Western Philosophy are covered in my review of Will Durant’s Volume V, History of Civilization: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
March 21, 2012
This is an absolutely devastating critique of Plato, which is made all the more impressive by the author and the reader openly acknowledging Plato's incredible intellectual powers. Plato spotted one of the greatest problems in both politics and individual human life, that of our lack of permanence and lack of truly objective guideposts to direct our actions, and came up with an amazingly elegant solution to the problem. Unfortunately, that solution is totalitarianism.
I've read most of Plato's works; Popper gives him a pretty fair reading. The idea of Justice being the good of the city, with good being defined as the city being static rather than dynamic, is not even a controversial interpretation of what Plato is saying. And yet, while a modern day Oceania sounds horrible to us, we look upon the "Republic" as a glorious achievement. The goals of the two are the same: maintain the ruling class. The methods are the same: keep the ruling class pure and small and free of desire of material gains, so that their only purpose in life is continuing the rule of their class. The tools are not even that different: assign people to their place in life, remove anyone questioning the system, and lies from a mystical leader are fine so long as it preserves the system.
Perhaps the most surprising thing to me is Popper's opinion that Plato's early "Socrates" largely reflects the historical Socrates, while in later dialogues "Socrates" begins saying things the real Socrates completely opposed. I'm convinced by Popper's argument. Socrates would not be the Philosopher King; Plato would, and he would undoubtedly ban Socrates from living in Callipolis.
A very good read. Looking forward to the second volume. Haven't read Hegel and only some Marx, but based on how reasonably Popper portrayed Plato's viewpoints, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I've read most of Plato's works; Popper gives him a pretty fair reading. The idea of Justice being the good of the city, with good being defined as the city being static rather than dynamic, is not even a controversial interpretation of what Plato is saying. And yet, while a modern day Oceania sounds horrible to us, we look upon the "Republic" as a glorious achievement. The goals of the two are the same: maintain the ruling class. The methods are the same: keep the ruling class pure and small and free of desire of material gains, so that their only purpose in life is continuing the rule of their class. The tools are not even that different: assign people to their place in life, remove anyone questioning the system, and lies from a mystical leader are fine so long as it preserves the system.
Perhaps the most surprising thing to me is Popper's opinion that Plato's early "Socrates" largely reflects the historical Socrates, while in later dialogues "Socrates" begins saying things the real Socrates completely opposed. I'm convinced by Popper's argument. Socrates would not be the Philosopher King; Plato would, and he would undoubtedly ban Socrates from living in Callipolis.
A very good read. Looking forward to the second volume. Haven't read Hegel and only some Marx, but based on how reasonably Popper portrayed Plato's viewpoints, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
July 20, 2020
في البداية أحب أن أشير أن الترجمة العربية كانت حرفية بشكل يشتت القارئ، مما اضطرني إلى الاستعانة بالنص الإنجليزي لأستوعب ما يريده الكاتب..
هذا الكتاب يعد الجزء الأول من الدفاع عن المجتمع المفتوح ضد أنصار المجتمع المغلق من الرجعيين والمعارضين للديقراطية والعلمانية والممثلة بالمدينة الفاضلة لأفلاطون، بينما في الجزء الثاني يتناول الكاتب انتقاد أعداء المجتمع المفتوح من الماركسيين أنصار الدولة "الفاضلة" الشيوعية الشمولية والحلم ببناء عالم مثالي مساواتي، ومحو كل أثر لهذا االعالم (وهو النظير للأفكار الرجعية بحسب بوبر ولا تقل عنها شرراً)
يعارض بوبر الأفكار الرجعية المنادية إلى عودة القبلية والنظام الشمولي والمناداة بترسيخ العبودية ونبذ العقلانية والعلم، وفي دفاعه عن الديمقراطية - وهو يماثل بينها وبين العلمانية واحترام حقوق الإنسان والفردية - يؤكد الكاتب أن الديمقراطية لا تعني الادعاء الساذج بحكم الأكثرية، وإنما مساواة النظم المتعددة أمام القانون. يجعل الأفراد متساوين أمام القانون والرقابة ، وهو باختصار تجنب الطغيان الهادف إلى قتل الفردية مع عدم قابلية التغير والتحسن الملازم لحكم الرجل الواحد أو الحزب الواحد أو الأيديولوجية الواحدة.
وفي سياق معارضته للمجتمع المغلق، يضع الكاتب أفلاطون وجمهوريته الفاضلة المثال للرجعية والمجتمع المغلق، إذ تقوم جمهورية أفلاطون الفاضلة على تقسيم طبقي للأفراد مع توزيع مهام بشكل مغلق غير قابل للتعديل، مع ترسيخ العبودية وحرمان الطبقة المتعلمة الحكيمة الفيلسوفة من الملكية الشخصية (كي لا تفسدها الأطماع الشخصية)، كما أنه لا يؤمن بشيوع التعليم، وهذا التقسيم يزعم أنه يتماشى مع الطبيعة ومع ما كان شائعا سابقا في حكم رجل القبيلة لقبيلته مع عدوم وجود إمكانية لاختيار المرء لما يريد. يتناول بوبر أفكار أفلاطون ثم يرد عليها، ويعرض تحليلا لأثينا في العهد الديمقراطي، مع شرح لأفكار بعض الفلاسفة والمؤرخين في تلك الفترة (ومنهم سقراط الديمقراطي الناقد لأداء الحكم الديمقراطي في عهده، وهي المغالطة التي وقع بها الكثيرون بحسب بوبر من اعتبار سقراط ضد الديمقراطية)
في نظر بوبر تقوم نظرية الدولة الفاضلة على الدعوة إلى مجتمع مثالي في المستقبل أو مجتمع مثالي كان في الماضي، بدعوى "العودة إلى الطبيعة" أو "التقدم نحو عالم الحب والجمال"، كمن يمتلك الداعي ��ليها مخطط مثالي يريد تطبيقه على أرض الواقع، وهو مليء بأحلام عن الجمال ورومنسيات عن السعادة التي ستتحقق لو تم تطبيق هذا العالم، لكن ما يلبث أن يتحول إلى جحيم يصنعه الإنسان لأخيه الإنسان.
"كلما حاولنا أكثر العودة إلى العصر البطولي للنظام القبلي، وصلنا بتأكيد أكثر إلى محاكم التفتيش، والبوليس السري، وإلى العصابات الإجرامية المغلفة بالرومنسية. وإذا ما بدأنا بطمس العقل والحقيقة، فلا بد أن ننتهي بتحطيم أكثر وحشية وعنف لكل ما هو إنساني."
أي وفق بوبر، فلتحقيق هذا المجتمع لن يتوانى المثالي عن استخدام أكثر الأساليب بشاعة لتحقيق دولته المزعومة.
والحل بنظر بوبر؟
الهندسة التدريجية، أي التغيير القائم على حل المشاكل الحالية، والقائم على القيام بإصلاحات في المؤسسات، لا التغيير الجذري للمؤسسات الحالية آملين بأن يحمل هذا المجتمع الفاضل حل جميع المشاكل. من الأفضل القيام بتغييرات على صعيد مؤسسات الدولة، كالنظام الصحي والتعليمي ومشكلة البطالة ومشكلة الاكتئاب..إلخ. إذ لن تسبب هذه التغييرات ضررا دائما، وهي قابلة للتعديل بسهولة وأقل مخاطرة. "ومن السهل الوصول إلى اتفاق منطقي حول الشرور المجتمعية ووسائل محاربتها ، بخلاف الطريقة الأخرى القائمة على تصور المجتمع الأفضل وطرق تحقيقه"
وعوضا عن محاولة جعل البشر سعداء، علينا التفكير بجعله أقل تعاسة، فهي الطريق المضمون والأقل مجازفة وعنفاً والأكثر واقعية وعملية.
من الجدير بالذكر أن الكتاب كتب على أعقاب الحرب العالمية الثانية، وبروز الأنظمة الشمولية التي اتسمت بالقبضة العنيفة لأجهزة الأمن تجاه كل من يخالف اتجاه الدولة. فهم هذا االكتاب منوط بفهم الحقبة التي كتب فيها، كما أنه مرتبط بواقع الدول العربية حاليا باختلاف أيديولوجيات الحكومات الحاكمة. وقد ألمح بوبر في كتابه في أكثر من مرة عن ارتباط الشمولية بالعدمية الأخلاقية (فالخير هو ما يكون في مصلحة جماعتي، أو قبيلتي، أو مدينتي) "ومن السهل أن نرى ما تضمنته هذه الأخلاق بالنسبة للعلاقات الدولية...وللدولة الحق ليس فحسب في تعنيف مواطنيها وإنما أيضا أن تهاجم دولا أخرى، بشرط أن تفعل ذلك دون أن تضعف نفسها) .
فالإمبريالية اليوم لا علاقة لها بنظام الحكم الداخلي، وديمقراطية الغرب لم تمنع بعض الدول من ممارسة "سياسة ديمقراطية" على الدول الأخرى، كما استخدمت ذريعة الديمقراطية لتبرير احتلال الشعوب ونهجها. إلا لو انتهج الكاتب بتبني نهج ديمقراطي عالمي كما يتبناه داخلياً، وهو بحد ذاه نوع من الرؤية المثالية المخالفة للواقع.
أسلوب الكاتب منطقي وترتيب أفكاره يشد القارئ، الكتاب هو عرض لأفكار أفلاطون أكثر من مناقشته لها، لأن عرضه بالذات كان نوعا ما مخالفا لما تم الترويج عن أفلاطون وحبه للإنسان، ولو كان أوسع في طرحه وضم شريحة أكثر معاصرة له لكان الكتاب أقوى وأكثر شمولية "لأعداء المجتمع المفتوح" من الرجعيين. لكني أختلف معه بخصوص أن "البؤس في دولة ديمقراطية أفضل من الرفاه في دولة الطغيان" ،لكن حديثه بالمجمل يشمل الغرب وحسب، والذي يختلف عندما نتكلم عن ديمقراطية وفردية في مجتمعات ليست مهيئة كذلك، وتعد بدائية جدا فيما يتعلق بمبدائ الفردية والحرية والعلم. قد تكون السعادة في بلدان كهذه مرتبطة بالرفاه أكثر من ارتباطها ب"الحرية" و"الديمقراطية" و"المساواة".
هذا الكتاب يعد الجزء الأول من الدفاع عن المجتمع المفتوح ضد أنصار المجتمع المغلق من الرجعيين والمعارضين للديقراطية والعلمانية والممثلة بالمدينة الفاضلة لأفلاطون، بينما في الجزء الثاني يتناول الكاتب انتقاد أعداء المجتمع المفتوح من الماركسيين أنصار الدولة "الفاضلة" الشيوعية الشمولية والحلم ببناء عالم مثالي مساواتي، ومحو كل أثر لهذا االعالم (وهو النظير للأفكار الرجعية بحسب بوبر ولا تقل عنها شرراً)
يعارض بوبر الأفكار الرجعية المنادية إلى عودة القبلية والنظام الشمولي والمناداة بترسيخ العبودية ونبذ العقلانية والعلم، وفي دفاعه عن الديمقراطية - وهو يماثل بينها وبين العلمانية واحترام حقوق الإنسان والفردية - يؤكد الكاتب أن الديمقراطية لا تعني الادعاء الساذج بحكم الأكثرية، وإنما مساواة النظم المتعددة أمام القانون. يجعل الأفراد متساوين أمام القانون والرقابة ، وهو باختصار تجنب الطغيان الهادف إلى قتل الفردية مع عدم قابلية التغير والتحسن الملازم لحكم الرجل الواحد أو الحزب الواحد أو الأيديولوجية الواحدة.
وفي سياق معارضته للمجتمع المغلق، يضع الكاتب أفلاطون وجمهوريته الفاضلة المثال للرجعية والمجتمع المغلق، إذ تقوم جمهورية أفلاطون الفاضلة على تقسيم طبقي للأفراد مع توزيع مهام بشكل مغلق غير قابل للتعديل، مع ترسيخ العبودية وحرمان الطبقة المتعلمة الحكيمة الفيلسوفة من الملكية الشخصية (كي لا تفسدها الأطماع الشخصية)، كما أنه لا يؤمن بشيوع التعليم، وهذا التقسيم يزعم أنه يتماشى مع الطبيعة ومع ما كان شائعا سابقا في حكم رجل القبيلة لقبيلته مع عدوم وجود إمكانية لاختيار المرء لما يريد. يتناول بوبر أفكار أفلاطون ثم يرد عليها، ويعرض تحليلا لأثينا في العهد الديمقراطي، مع شرح لأفكار بعض الفلاسفة والمؤرخين في تلك الفترة (ومنهم سقراط الديمقراطي الناقد لأداء الحكم الديمقراطي في عهده، وهي المغالطة التي وقع بها الكثيرون بحسب بوبر من اعتبار سقراط ضد الديمقراطية)
في نظر بوبر تقوم نظرية الدولة الفاضلة على الدعوة إلى مجتمع مثالي في المستقبل أو مجتمع مثالي كان في الماضي، بدعوى "العودة إلى الطبيعة" أو "التقدم نحو عالم الحب والجمال"، كمن يمتلك الداعي ��ليها مخطط مثالي يريد تطبيقه على أرض الواقع، وهو مليء بأحلام عن الجمال ورومنسيات عن السعادة التي ستتحقق لو تم تطبيق هذا العالم، لكن ما يلبث أن يتحول إلى جحيم يصنعه الإنسان لأخيه الإنسان.
"كلما حاولنا أكثر العودة إلى العصر البطولي للنظام القبلي، وصلنا بتأكيد أكثر إلى محاكم التفتيش، والبوليس السري، وإلى العصابات الإجرامية المغلفة بالرومنسية. وإذا ما بدأنا بطمس العقل والحقيقة، فلا بد أن ننتهي بتحطيم أكثر وحشية وعنف لكل ما هو إنساني."
أي وفق بوبر، فلتحقيق هذا المجتمع لن يتوانى المثالي عن استخدام أكثر الأساليب بشاعة لتحقيق دولته المزعومة.
والحل بنظر بوبر؟
الهندسة التدريجية، أي التغيير القائم على حل المشاكل الحالية، والقائم على القيام بإصلاحات في المؤسسات، لا التغيير الجذري للمؤسسات الحالية آملين بأن يحمل هذا المجتمع الفاضل حل جميع المشاكل. من الأفضل القيام بتغييرات على صعيد مؤسسات الدولة، كالنظام الصحي والتعليمي ومشكلة البطالة ومشكلة الاكتئاب..إلخ. إذ لن تسبب هذه التغييرات ضررا دائما، وهي قابلة للتعديل بسهولة وأقل مخاطرة. "ومن السهل الوصول إلى اتفاق منطقي حول الشرور المجتمعية ووسائل محاربتها ، بخلاف الطريقة الأخرى القائمة على تصور المجتمع الأفضل وطرق تحقيقه"
وعوضا عن محاولة جعل البشر سعداء، علينا التفكير بجعله أقل تعاسة، فهي الطريق المضمون والأقل مجازفة وعنفاً والأكثر واقعية وعملية.
من الجدير بالذكر أن الكتاب كتب على أعقاب الحرب العالمية الثانية، وبروز الأنظمة الشمولية التي اتسمت بالقبضة العنيفة لأجهزة الأمن تجاه كل من يخالف اتجاه الدولة. فهم هذا االكتاب منوط بفهم الحقبة التي كتب فيها، كما أنه مرتبط بواقع الدول العربية حاليا باختلاف أيديولوجيات الحكومات الحاكمة. وقد ألمح بوبر في كتابه في أكثر من مرة عن ارتباط الشمولية بالعدمية الأخلاقية (فالخير هو ما يكون في مصلحة جماعتي، أو قبيلتي، أو مدينتي) "ومن السهل أن نرى ما تضمنته هذه الأخلاق بالنسبة للعلاقات الدولية...وللدولة الحق ليس فحسب في تعنيف مواطنيها وإنما أيضا أن تهاجم دولا أخرى، بشرط أن تفعل ذلك دون أن تضعف نفسها) .
فالإمبريالية اليوم لا علاقة لها بنظام الحكم الداخلي، وديمقراطية الغرب لم تمنع بعض الدول من ممارسة "سياسة ديمقراطية" على الدول الأخرى، كما استخدمت ذريعة الديمقراطية لتبرير احتلال الشعوب ونهجها. إلا لو انتهج الكاتب بتبني نهج ديمقراطي عالمي كما يتبناه داخلياً، وهو بحد ذاه نوع من الرؤية المثالية المخالفة للواقع.
أسلوب الكاتب منطقي وترتيب أفكاره يشد القارئ، الكتاب هو عرض لأفكار أفلاطون أكثر من مناقشته لها، لأن عرضه بالذات كان نوعا ما مخالفا لما تم الترويج عن أفلاطون وحبه للإنسان، ولو كان أوسع في طرحه وضم شريحة أكثر معاصرة له لكان الكتاب أقوى وأكثر شمولية "لأعداء المجتمع المفتوح" من الرجعيين. لكني أختلف معه بخصوص أن "البؤس في دولة ديمقراطية أفضل من الرفاه في دولة الطغيان" ،لكن حديثه بالمجمل يشمل الغرب وحسب، والذي يختلف عندما نتكلم عن ديمقراطية وفردية في مجتمعات ليست مهيئة كذلك، وتعد بدائية جدا فيما يتعلق بمبدائ الفردية والحرية والعلم. قد تكون السعادة في بلدان كهذه مرتبطة بالرفاه أكثر من ارتباطها ب"الحرية" و"الديمقراطية" و"المساواة".
January 19, 2019
Karl Popper is my great intellectual reference in life. It is a pity that it is not as read and known as Marx. Perhaps because the implications of his ideas do not give rise to so many passions.
I took this book in a moment of intellectual disillusionment. After reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb, I had to admit that we economists claim to have a knowledge of reality far inferior to what we actually have.
Economic "science" is full of non-falsifiable theories and consensuses built for ideological convenience. None of these statements is easily accepted by my colleagues, but at one point in that year, I found myself seriously questioning my profession. It was this intellectual uneasiness that brought me to this Popper book. My intention was to answer the question: what can science say about our life in society?
I think Popper's answer was what I expected: not much. Indeed, if we accept a liberal normative view that the ideal society is one in which individuals can exercise their individual freedoms and that these are limited only by the freedoms of others, the greatest intellectual challenge is to fight against those who espouse pseudo-scientific visions that degenerate into processes of social engineering.
In this first volume of the book, Popper says that the basis of historicist thinking (the idea that it is possible to know history holistically and predict its long-term development) is in Plato. Popper reconstructs the historical and political context in which Plato elaborated his ideas and identifies in the political opinions of the philosopher a strong normative load influenced by his social position.
Popper's idea is that this historicist tradition took root in Western philosophy from the contribution of Plato and, later, through the works of Hegel and Marx, objects of volume II of the book.
I took this book in a moment of intellectual disillusionment. After reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb, I had to admit that we economists claim to have a knowledge of reality far inferior to what we actually have.
Economic "science" is full of non-falsifiable theories and consensuses built for ideological convenience. None of these statements is easily accepted by my colleagues, but at one point in that year, I found myself seriously questioning my profession. It was this intellectual uneasiness that brought me to this Popper book. My intention was to answer the question: what can science say about our life in society?
I think Popper's answer was what I expected: not much. Indeed, if we accept a liberal normative view that the ideal society is one in which individuals can exercise their individual freedoms and that these are limited only by the freedoms of others, the greatest intellectual challenge is to fight against those who espouse pseudo-scientific visions that degenerate into processes of social engineering.
In this first volume of the book, Popper says that the basis of historicist thinking (the idea that it is possible to know history holistically and predict its long-term development) is in Plato. Popper reconstructs the historical and political context in which Plato elaborated his ideas and identifies in the political opinions of the philosopher a strong normative load influenced by his social position.
Popper's idea is that this historicist tradition took root in Western philosophy from the contribution of Plato and, later, through the works of Hegel and Marx, objects of volume II of the book.
March 10, 2017
An essential book for the person who is looking for the roots of hatred of individualism, human intellect and human creativity. Plato was the first in line to openly and intellectually declare war on the individual, his poisonous ideas in time fueled many dangerous ideologies including mainstream religions and K.Popper, being the knight defender of egalitarianism, freedom of thought and expression and individualism shows us, NO reveals us how Plato, so called hero of philosophy was actually a monster, who stole from Socrates and bastardized what he learned eventually turning them into weapons against people like Socrates, the gifted individuals.
Yes, we can see Plato had identified how a society works and how it is managed, he understood the nature of power and state. Because he knew-how, he also knew how to turn these bastions of civilization into dystopian prisons, weapons of individual destruction (as opposed to mass destruction).
Any idea or ideology that holds the mass over the individual, any idea that seeks to silence the alternatives, any idea that bases itself on the power of the masses and proposes collectivist solutions IS AN IDEA OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, it is cancer, and Plato was one of the flag bearers of this toxic mindset.
To hell with him.
Yes, we can see Plato had identified how a society works and how it is managed, he understood the nature of power and state. Because he knew-how, he also knew how to turn these bastions of civilization into dystopian prisons, weapons of individual destruction (as opposed to mass destruction).
Any idea or ideology that holds the mass over the individual, any idea that seeks to silence the alternatives, any idea that bases itself on the power of the masses and proposes collectivist solutions IS AN IDEA OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, it is cancer, and Plato was one of the flag bearers of this toxic mindset.
To hell with him.
January 13, 2012
Popper is a pretty persuasive writer, a real scholar. I was a bit skeptical when I started this book, since I had always held Plato in pretty high esteem. But Popper brought together a lot of what I already knew in a way that made me rethink some of my opinions.
I would like to read the other volume of The Open Society and Its Enemies, on Hegel and Marx, but don't yet have it.
I would like to read the other volume of The Open Society and Its Enemies, on Hegel and Marx, but don't yet have it.
March 5, 2020
The edition of this book put out by Princeton University appears in two volumes. This review covers the first volume only, titled “Plato.”
“The Open Society and Its Enemies” ranks as one of the greatest and most influential works of political philosophy of the twentieth century. Published right as Italy, Germany, and Russia were learning the lessons of what Popper will go on in this book to call a “closed society,” most people today remember him for philosophical work of a very different kind, mostly in and around what we call the philosophy of science. Today he remains best known for his assertion that scientific theories should be falsifiable, i.e., they should be able to be proven wrong by certain observations, or else they are not scientific.
Popper tries to take the same principles that he utilizes to talk about scientific methodology and the process of induction and apply them to human endeavors. This first volume is devoted almost entirely to Popper’s conception of historicism and why he thinks it’s so dangerous. Then it moves into an extended attack on Plato’s political philosophy as found in the “Republic,” a text that lays out in detail one of the first enunciated political philosophies we have.
Historicism, which Popper wants to invalidate in all of its forms, is the idea that, like scientific laws, there are historical and social laws – laws that we can discern – which govern the behavior of people, governments, and societies. Plato spends part of the Republic trying to show that the unchanging nature of the State is what allows for political philosophy. Popper makes the clear and convincing argument that, more than anything else, the thing that most threatens Plato’s ability to create the perfect society is that old Heraclitean bugbear – change. Plato sees change as the biggest threat to the State apparatus. As long as he can keep the Guardian line (those who rule and oversee the Republic) pure, then the laws will never change, and because human nature and the Platonic forms never change, Plato can successfully claim that he has unlocked the key to constructing the perfect society.
What, then, is the “open” or “closed” society? To give a short answer, the open society looks something very much like a liberal democracy and the values that we usually associate with that form of government. The slightly more Popperian answer? The open society is one in which institutions allow for the pragmatic, piecemeal redress of social and cultural problems, with the key words here being pragmatic and piecemeal. The closed society is more than just one that lacks these important institutions. It lacks them because of the attempted imposition of a totalitarian vision of government.
For Popper, this totalitarianism usually comes in the form of either historicism or utopianism. Instead of slowly, rationally fixing the problems of society as they arise (as we would in an open society), a closed society will put forward a timeless, unchanging dictum which must be respected at all costs. Marxist historicism, of course, claims that the superstructure of society and culture always rests upon a particular economic base. Plato’s historicism involves preserving the present function and composition of the State at all costs, no matter what that might mean for the people in society.
What is the problem with historicism? Why are Marx and Plato so wrong to operate with these guiding assumptions in mind? Going back to Popperian scientific methodology, they are completely unfalsifiable: that the highest Good is the State, or that a particular economic base always causes a certain kind of cultural superstructure are statements that one might subscribe to, but that one cannot ever illustrate to be wrong. When attempts to rectify social ills – legislation, for example – are written with these unfalsifiable assertions in mind, what results is dogmatic social engineering instead of the pragmatic, piecemeal practice that we are forced to make by virtue of being creatures prone to mistakes.
When you know that you have the answer to human nature (as Plato and Marx would have claimed that they did) your answers to social problems tend to be more circumscribed, narrow, and extreme: protect the Guardians at all costs, separate children from their parents at birth and raise them in a communitarian setting, censure all mimetic arts (for Plato), foment a proletarian revolution (for Marx). Writ large, this part of the text is largely about the limits of human reason and our frequent unwillingness to accept those limits. Human understanding of reality is always wholly circumscribed, partial, and fragmented. To make things even worse, we often find ourselves – for reasons of intellectual laziness, political propaganda, or simple the failure of imagination – imagining that we have found The Answer To All Human Problems. It is when this happens that, according to Popper, that slow small steps of social progress give way to the wayward pursuit of credulous dogmatism.
Whether or not you agree with its conclusions, there is a lot to make “The Open Society and Its Enemies” admirable. It was written at a time in history much the Anglophone philosophical world was much more interested in writing about the epistemic foundations of mathematics than according addressing real world concerns. Anything that couldn’t be put under a logical microscope was seen as suspect, including ethics or political philosophy. Ironically, it was Popper’s compatriot Ludwig Wittgenstein who was largely responsible for philosophy’s dismissive attitudes toward these subjects. Rarely has a philosopher so keenly and intelligently brought their own body of work to contemporaneous world problems, let alone to have that work become an indispensable classic in its field.
A review of Popper’s second volume, “The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath” is forthcoming.
“The Open Society and Its Enemies” ranks as one of the greatest and most influential works of political philosophy of the twentieth century. Published right as Italy, Germany, and Russia were learning the lessons of what Popper will go on in this book to call a “closed society,” most people today remember him for philosophical work of a very different kind, mostly in and around what we call the philosophy of science. Today he remains best known for his assertion that scientific theories should be falsifiable, i.e., they should be able to be proven wrong by certain observations, or else they are not scientific.
Popper tries to take the same principles that he utilizes to talk about scientific methodology and the process of induction and apply them to human endeavors. This first volume is devoted almost entirely to Popper’s conception of historicism and why he thinks it’s so dangerous. Then it moves into an extended attack on Plato’s political philosophy as found in the “Republic,” a text that lays out in detail one of the first enunciated political philosophies we have.
Historicism, which Popper wants to invalidate in all of its forms, is the idea that, like scientific laws, there are historical and social laws – laws that we can discern – which govern the behavior of people, governments, and societies. Plato spends part of the Republic trying to show that the unchanging nature of the State is what allows for political philosophy. Popper makes the clear and convincing argument that, more than anything else, the thing that most threatens Plato’s ability to create the perfect society is that old Heraclitean bugbear – change. Plato sees change as the biggest threat to the State apparatus. As long as he can keep the Guardian line (those who rule and oversee the Republic) pure, then the laws will never change, and because human nature and the Platonic forms never change, Plato can successfully claim that he has unlocked the key to constructing the perfect society.
What, then, is the “open” or “closed” society? To give a short answer, the open society looks something very much like a liberal democracy and the values that we usually associate with that form of government. The slightly more Popperian answer? The open society is one in which institutions allow for the pragmatic, piecemeal redress of social and cultural problems, with the key words here being pragmatic and piecemeal. The closed society is more than just one that lacks these important institutions. It lacks them because of the attempted imposition of a totalitarian vision of government.
For Popper, this totalitarianism usually comes in the form of either historicism or utopianism. Instead of slowly, rationally fixing the problems of society as they arise (as we would in an open society), a closed society will put forward a timeless, unchanging dictum which must be respected at all costs. Marxist historicism, of course, claims that the superstructure of society and culture always rests upon a particular economic base. Plato’s historicism involves preserving the present function and composition of the State at all costs, no matter what that might mean for the people in society.
What is the problem with historicism? Why are Marx and Plato so wrong to operate with these guiding assumptions in mind? Going back to Popperian scientific methodology, they are completely unfalsifiable: that the highest Good is the State, or that a particular economic base always causes a certain kind of cultural superstructure are statements that one might subscribe to, but that one cannot ever illustrate to be wrong. When attempts to rectify social ills – legislation, for example – are written with these unfalsifiable assertions in mind, what results is dogmatic social engineering instead of the pragmatic, piecemeal practice that we are forced to make by virtue of being creatures prone to mistakes.
When you know that you have the answer to human nature (as Plato and Marx would have claimed that they did) your answers to social problems tend to be more circumscribed, narrow, and extreme: protect the Guardians at all costs, separate children from their parents at birth and raise them in a communitarian setting, censure all mimetic arts (for Plato), foment a proletarian revolution (for Marx). Writ large, this part of the text is largely about the limits of human reason and our frequent unwillingness to accept those limits. Human understanding of reality is always wholly circumscribed, partial, and fragmented. To make things even worse, we often find ourselves – for reasons of intellectual laziness, political propaganda, or simple the failure of imagination – imagining that we have found The Answer To All Human Problems. It is when this happens that, according to Popper, that slow small steps of social progress give way to the wayward pursuit of credulous dogmatism.
Whether or not you agree with its conclusions, there is a lot to make “The Open Society and Its Enemies” admirable. It was written at a time in history much the Anglophone philosophical world was much more interested in writing about the epistemic foundations of mathematics than according addressing real world concerns. Anything that couldn’t be put under a logical microscope was seen as suspect, including ethics or political philosophy. Ironically, it was Popper’s compatriot Ludwig Wittgenstein who was largely responsible for philosophy’s dismissive attitudes toward these subjects. Rarely has a philosopher so keenly and intelligently brought their own body of work to contemporaneous world problems, let alone to have that work become an indispensable classic in its field.
A review of Popper’s second volume, “The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath” is forthcoming.
November 27, 2021
اثر جامعهٔ باز و دشمنان آن در دو مجلد به چاپ رسیده است. پژوهش مفیدی در باب محدودیتهای فکری اندیشمندان بزرگی که اینبار هدفش افلاطون است. گرچه، پژوهشهای پوپر خالی از اشکال نیست.
November 24, 2020
Avaliação no 2º volume
October 15, 2023
Unforgivably stupid.
December 24, 2020
I'm still in some shock from the utter thrashing that Popper perpetrates upon Plato, maybe the most venerated philosopher in the history of the world. For that alone the book is exceedingly welcome, although I'm admittedly no expert on ancient Greek philosophy, so it's not prudent to accept everything Popper says on just his word. Indeed, one of the problems I had with the book is that, despite his various reminders that he means nothing personal, and that he still holds Plato in the highest esteem, Popper seems almost gleeful at times while knocking the old Greek down several notches. So were his disclaimers deceptive, ironic, or just disingenuous?
That said, the man has a capacity for argumentation that I'm not sure I've ever encountered. His arguments are clear, logical, and strong. He uses primarily Plato's Republic to paint Socrates' alum as the originator of totalitarianism, highlighting his proposed class stratification, state propaganda to maintain order, and the suppression of intellectual and all other freedoms. One of his most shocking and damning criticisms is the evidence that Plato actively supported selective breeding as one of the first forms of eugenics, to maintain as pure the "master race." Also quite impressive was the documentation of Plato's perversion of his own mentor's teaching. Socrates comes out of this as a shining beacon of liberalism and humanitarianism.
My main criticisms of the book are incidental to the larger point. The brief discussion in Note 4 of Ch. 7 troubled me. In discussing the "paradox of tolerance," Popper correctly notes that a completely tolerant society will breed intolerance, just because they will tolerate an intolerant person or group to rise to power and begin repression. His solution, that it's therefore necessary to repress intolerance, seems like a very slippery slope. I can respect it, as a hater of ignorance myself, but assuming that some abuse-proof way of controlling intolerance is within our grasp seems awfully idealistic. In his abhorrence of Plato's totalitarianism, he seems to err on the side of Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority." Who can say which is preferable?
This goes into my larger criticism. As more of a radical than Popper (in his literal sense of the word), I remain skeptical of his deep faith in democratic institutes and the process of reform. Maybe he would have thought differently about our democratic process had he lived a couple of decades longer (i.e. witnessing the rise of FoxNews and the neocon). Or maybe he would have just emphasized the need to repress such hateful intolerance, who knows? But for all the cojones and free-thinking Popper shows in going after the originators of Western thought and civilization as we know them, it's a little surprising that he doesn't take it to the next level, wondering if there isn't some problem with our civilization as a whole. Or if there isn't some compromise between the magical tribalism of his Closed Society and the humanist rationalism of the Open.
Not Bad Reviews
@pointblaek
That said, the man has a capacity for argumentation that I'm not sure I've ever encountered. His arguments are clear, logical, and strong. He uses primarily Plato's Republic to paint Socrates' alum as the originator of totalitarianism, highlighting his proposed class stratification, state propaganda to maintain order, and the suppression of intellectual and all other freedoms. One of his most shocking and damning criticisms is the evidence that Plato actively supported selective breeding as one of the first forms of eugenics, to maintain as pure the "master race." Also quite impressive was the documentation of Plato's perversion of his own mentor's teaching. Socrates comes out of this as a shining beacon of liberalism and humanitarianism.
My main criticisms of the book are incidental to the larger point. The brief discussion in Note 4 of Ch. 7 troubled me. In discussing the "paradox of tolerance," Popper correctly notes that a completely tolerant society will breed intolerance, just because they will tolerate an intolerant person or group to rise to power and begin repression. His solution, that it's therefore necessary to repress intolerance, seems like a very slippery slope. I can respect it, as a hater of ignorance myself, but assuming that some abuse-proof way of controlling intolerance is within our grasp seems awfully idealistic. In his abhorrence of Plato's totalitarianism, he seems to err on the side of Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority." Who can say which is preferable?
This goes into my larger criticism. As more of a radical than Popper (in his literal sense of the word), I remain skeptical of his deep faith in democratic institutes and the process of reform. Maybe he would have thought differently about our democratic process had he lived a couple of decades longer (i.e. witnessing the rise of FoxNews and the neocon). Or maybe he would have just emphasized the need to repress such hateful intolerance, who knows? But for all the cojones and free-thinking Popper shows in going after the originators of Western thought and civilization as we know them, it's a little surprising that he doesn't take it to the next level, wondering if there isn't some problem with our civilization as a whole. Or if there isn't some compromise between the magical tribalism of his Closed Society and the humanist rationalism of the Open.
Not Bad Reviews
@pointblaek
September 28, 2019
A compelling exploration of the nature of free and totalitarian societies, written as an inquiry into Plato's philosophy. Popper contends that Plato is in many ways the first totalitarian. Writing to push back on the expansion of democracy in Athens, Plato held that all change, including political change, is decay from the ideal type or form of things. He orchestrated a society in the Republic (a misnamed book, says Popper, that should be translated as "The State") in which the guardians, the soldiers, and the workers (slaves, Popper calls them) play the role assigned for them by nature by Plato's crude racialism (people having different mixes of metals in their blood, predetermining their capacities. Order depends on these classes/races not being mixed, and justice really means the maintenance of this order regardless of the costs or punishments imposed on individuals.
Popper says that Plato flatters intellectuals by offering them the helm of this utopia as "philosopher-kings," but Popper's true purpose is to show how Plato has distorted the Western intellectual tradition, as he has often been portrayed as a harbinger of freedom and rationality. Popper's Plato is the opposite: even his notions of truth hinge on politics. The greatest goal of Plato's society would be a population incapable of thinking for themselves and following the dictates of the philosopher-kings like perfect automatons. Popper skillfully uses Plato as a mirror to reflect on the nature of an open society, which he believes first occurred in history in the Athenian generations just before Plato. These figures, including Socrates, created a humanistic, critical philosophy that separated the idea of social conventions from the natural/mystical realm into the understanding that human beings invented and controlled these conventions.
For Popper, this is the first big step a society must take before it can become modern and mature. His other major enemies are historicism and utopian social engineering. Historicism refers to any belief that one knows the absolute laws of history or the laws of nature that lie under history. Marx, for instance, was a hardcore historicist. Historicists, Popper argues, are confident enough to believe they have a perfect blueprint for remaking society that they can achieve if they get enough power and are allowed to mercilessly crush resisters and outsiders. This is an important insight into totalitarianism, and I think Popper is on to something in describing Plato this way, even if I would like to hear from classicists about how legit his interpretation of the Republic is.
The ideas of this book are fascinating but heads up: it is quite dense and slow reading, given the extended exegesis of The Republic and other texts. Still, if you are interested in the intellectual building blocks of free and unfree societies or in the generation of commentators on totalitarianism surrounding WWII, this might be worth a read.
Popper says that Plato flatters intellectuals by offering them the helm of this utopia as "philosopher-kings," but Popper's true purpose is to show how Plato has distorted the Western intellectual tradition, as he has often been portrayed as a harbinger of freedom and rationality. Popper's Plato is the opposite: even his notions of truth hinge on politics. The greatest goal of Plato's society would be a population incapable of thinking for themselves and following the dictates of the philosopher-kings like perfect automatons. Popper skillfully uses Plato as a mirror to reflect on the nature of an open society, which he believes first occurred in history in the Athenian generations just before Plato. These figures, including Socrates, created a humanistic, critical philosophy that separated the idea of social conventions from the natural/mystical realm into the understanding that human beings invented and controlled these conventions.
For Popper, this is the first big step a society must take before it can become modern and mature. His other major enemies are historicism and utopian social engineering. Historicism refers to any belief that one knows the absolute laws of history or the laws of nature that lie under history. Marx, for instance, was a hardcore historicist. Historicists, Popper argues, are confident enough to believe they have a perfect blueprint for remaking society that they can achieve if they get enough power and are allowed to mercilessly crush resisters and outsiders. This is an important insight into totalitarianism, and I think Popper is on to something in describing Plato this way, even if I would like to hear from classicists about how legit his interpretation of the Republic is.
The ideas of this book are fascinating but heads up: it is quite dense and slow reading, given the extended exegesis of The Republic and other texts. Still, if you are interested in the intellectual building blocks of free and unfree societies or in the generation of commentators on totalitarianism surrounding WWII, this might be worth a read.
January 15, 2010
Popper begins 150 pages of endnotes with an apology for those books he was unable to consult due to wartime (WWII) conditions. This sense of humility and thoroughness pervades Poppers work. Any satisfying soundbites - 'what we want is to moralize politics and not to politicize morals' - are invariably preceded by pages of meticulous argument and textual reference. A careful avoidance of polemic and generalisation enhances Popper's case against hitoricism and essentialism as they appear not only in Plato and his successors but also in Marx and some strains of Liberalism. Popper throughly dissects Plato's fascism and its legacy, meanwhile advocating a piecemeal social engineering with a democratic base of power. A protectionist society that ensures freedom through state control that is institutionalised but never absolute and never absolutely permanent.
He agrees with Plato that it is perhaps ridiculous to argue that we are all born equal. Yet, unlike Plato, he does not believe that this natural inequality correlates with an unequal division of rights. On the contrary, one of society's primary aims is to protect those weakest and most vulnerable from persecution and exploitation by those who may have certain hereditary or contextual advantage. In this way, liberalism and state interference are not opposed to each other; in fact, 'any kind of freedom is clearly impossible unless it is guaranteed by the state.' A democratic state is therefore an association with rational ends, neither an object of worship nor an oppressor.
He highlights the stark contrast between the Socratic and Platonic ideals as that between 'a modest, rational individualist and that of a totalitarian demi-god'. An Austrian with Jewish origins who left Austria in 1937 during the rise of Naziism, Popper's arguments have a peculiar pertinence. However, many of Popper's side observations, including Plato's legacy to education - stating its purpose (in opposition to Socrates) as that of forming future leaders, and studying for the sake of career - seem to have direct contemporary relevance.
Drawing parallels between Plato and Marx, eugenics and Pythagorean mysticism, Popper's ultimate target is historicist and essentialist thinking. The fact that he can draw on both recent and ancient tragedies to support his explication of the dangerous consequences of such philosophy enhance the urgency and compassion of this extraordinary book.
He agrees with Plato that it is perhaps ridiculous to argue that we are all born equal. Yet, unlike Plato, he does not believe that this natural inequality correlates with an unequal division of rights. On the contrary, one of society's primary aims is to protect those weakest and most vulnerable from persecution and exploitation by those who may have certain hereditary or contextual advantage. In this way, liberalism and state interference are not opposed to each other; in fact, 'any kind of freedom is clearly impossible unless it is guaranteed by the state.' A democratic state is therefore an association with rational ends, neither an object of worship nor an oppressor.
He highlights the stark contrast between the Socratic and Platonic ideals as that between 'a modest, rational individualist and that of a totalitarian demi-god'. An Austrian with Jewish origins who left Austria in 1937 during the rise of Naziism, Popper's arguments have a peculiar pertinence. However, many of Popper's side observations, including Plato's legacy to education - stating its purpose (in opposition to Socrates) as that of forming future leaders, and studying for the sake of career - seem to have direct contemporary relevance.
Drawing parallels between Plato and Marx, eugenics and Pythagorean mysticism, Popper's ultimate target is historicist and essentialist thinking. The fact that he can draw on both recent and ancient tragedies to support his explication of the dangerous consequences of such philosophy enhance the urgency and compassion of this extraordinary book.
March 19, 2012
This is a thorough repudiation of Plato's political and moral philosophy. Although I am definitely not any sort of historian or authority on the nature of Plato's philosophy, Popper is convincing enough to make me really question the "idealization" of Plato he so often mentions.
My criticisms are not of Popper's treatment of Plato, but of some of his other contentions on the subject of individualism/collectivism and ethics. Popper himself creates a table in which individualism is opposed to collectivism, and egoism is opposed to altruism. He specifically notes, correctly, that this creates four combinations of possible societies using these terms. And he also notes, correctly, that an individualistic society can be altruistic while not egoistic, and that a collectivist society can be egoistic while not altruistic. However, since he seems to be firmly opposed to collectivist societies, it seems strange that he doesn't mention at all societies that can be collectivist and altruistic. I hope that this will be addressed in Volume II.
As to ethics, he suggests replacing the typical utilitarian doctrine of maximizing happiness with minimizing suffering. I tend to agree with Popper here. That being said, he continues onto a particularly lengthy exposition on the demerits of "scientism" in ethics. That is, he attacks the notion of using scientific methodology too acutely in ethics and emphasizes the impossibility of drawing conclusions about values from facts. There is some truth in both of these claims, but the extent to which these practices must not be applied to ethics has been drawn into question by, among others, Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape. One may forgive Popper, however, because he was well aware of the horrors that came of a rigid adherence in applying the naturalistic (more often than not) fallacy to society, ie; social Darwinism.
Oh, and as a final criticism, the notes are extensive, probably as long as the text proper considering the size of the font. It's always appreciated when an author explains him or herself as thoroughly as possible, but I think Popper could have done a much better job at incorporating the ideas in the notes directly into the text. It gets annoying have to flip back and forth between the text and the notes so often.
I still really enjoyed reading this work, and Popper's overall indictment of historicism is as convincing as ever. I'm looking forward to reading Volume II.
My criticisms are not of Popper's treatment of Plato, but of some of his other contentions on the subject of individualism/collectivism and ethics. Popper himself creates a table in which individualism is opposed to collectivism, and egoism is opposed to altruism. He specifically notes, correctly, that this creates four combinations of possible societies using these terms. And he also notes, correctly, that an individualistic society can be altruistic while not egoistic, and that a collectivist society can be egoistic while not altruistic. However, since he seems to be firmly opposed to collectivist societies, it seems strange that he doesn't mention at all societies that can be collectivist and altruistic. I hope that this will be addressed in Volume II.
As to ethics, he suggests replacing the typical utilitarian doctrine of maximizing happiness with minimizing suffering. I tend to agree with Popper here. That being said, he continues onto a particularly lengthy exposition on the demerits of "scientism" in ethics. That is, he attacks the notion of using scientific methodology too acutely in ethics and emphasizes the impossibility of drawing conclusions about values from facts. There is some truth in both of these claims, but the extent to which these practices must not be applied to ethics has been drawn into question by, among others, Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape. One may forgive Popper, however, because he was well aware of the horrors that came of a rigid adherence in applying the naturalistic (more often than not) fallacy to society, ie; social Darwinism.
Oh, and as a final criticism, the notes are extensive, probably as long as the text proper considering the size of the font. It's always appreciated when an author explains him or herself as thoroughly as possible, but I think Popper could have done a much better job at incorporating the ideas in the notes directly into the text. It gets annoying have to flip back and forth between the text and the notes so often.
I still really enjoyed reading this work, and Popper's overall indictment of historicism is as convincing as ever. I'm looking forward to reading Volume II.
May 4, 2023
In Karl Popper's seminal work, The Open Society and Its Enemies he argues for the importance of an open and free society. Popper believed that such a society was one in which individuals were allowed to exercise their critical powers, to think and speak freely, and to work towards the improvement of institutions through reason rather than violence. However, Popper also recognized the dangers that threaten such a society, particularly the rise of totalitarian ideologies that claim to have mastered the laws of history and seek to impose their will on others. These ideologies, he argued, are fundamentally mistaken, rooted in the belief that the future will necessarily resemble the past. This belief, Popper argued, is the root of much human misery, as it leads individuals and societies to cling to harmful practices. Interestingly, Popper saw Plato as an exemplar of the kind of totalitarian thinking that he sought to critique and combat. Plato, according to Popper, believed that anything that furthered the interests of the state was good and just, while anything that opposed those interests was bad and wicked. This kind of thinking, Popper argued, is inherently dangerous, as it allows those in power to justify any action, no matter how harmful or unjust, as necessary for the good of the state.
Read
May 18, 2020Popper's book is a radical re-reading of Plato whom he argues provides, in his authoritarian vision of the perfect state, a template for twentieth-century totalitarianism oppression (Nazism, Stalinism). Rather than a champion of rational social organisation, Plato is therefore in fact the enemy of true political freedom. Perhaps the most unsettling claim - for philosophers anyway - is that Plato's use of the character of Socrates in his dialogues is a complete distortion of what the real Socrates stood for - the opposite, in fact. The book is well-argued, clear, and - apart from some sections which will be challenging to non-philosophers - a pleasure to read. I'm still not sure about all of what Popper says, mind you, but it's definitely a must read for anyone interested in Plato or political theory.
Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.
Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.
April 28, 2013
أعداء المجتمع المفتوح هي الأفكار الشمولية التي تتضمن شموليتها انغلاقها فهي تقدم تصورا متكاملا منتهيا لتكون وتطور المجتمع التاريخي ومن هنا فهي تؤدي بالضرورة إلى الوقوف في وجه الأفكار المخالفة بل وقمعها ومن هنا ترافقت ، على مدار التاريخ البشري ، المذاهب الشمولية والقمع والديكتاتورية والاستبداد. الشيوعية وستالين النازية وهتلر الأديان والملوك في القرون الوسطى. كانت هذه متلازمة تثبت باستمرار خطر الأفكار الشمولية. المجتمع المفتوح هو المجتمع الديموقراطي الذي لا يحكمه تصور نهائي مثالي محدد بل يسير بخطوات متتابعة يسيّرها المحاولة المستمرة للتطور والتقدم محاولة منفتحة على الأفكار والتوجهات وغير محكومة بأفكار مسبقة
March 27, 2015
Popper brilliantly shows how Plato was no friend of democracy or freedom (the "open society"). This highly influential work is fascinating, yet, highly readable.
October 17, 2015
كتاب غاية في الروعة وعميق جدا
September 19, 2022
My god! What a passionate defence of democracy in the face of totalitarian theories disguised as "natural". What a teardown of Plato, who lies at the very root of totalitarianism ideas that took over the minds of the learned for generations. Plato, who espoused that the wisest should rule, stroked the flames of power inside every wise man, and corrupted him into thinking that he should rule.
The most important point of this book can be found right in the middle of it. According to Plato, the most important question in political philosophy is "Who should rule?", to which his answer is Philosopher Kings, aka the wisest should rule. At first glance, this indeed seems like the most important question to answer, since only after we decide the answer to this question can we decide what are the most important virtues. But power is like water and oxygen on unanodized iron: it corrupts. Power is what corrupted Anakin Skywalker, who was the "chosen one".
Political theory needs to be designed in such a fashion that the greatest number of people can benefit from it, making the question of who should rule not even a Top 5 question. Since power eventually corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts, we should be instead asking the question "How should we design our social institutions such that any person in power can do minimal harm to them?". Because leaders will come and go, but institutions will stand for a long time, and only through institutions can we have lasting changes.
Plato has definitely fallen in esteem for me after reading this book, also because he chose his teacher Socrates as the mouthpiece for his vile attack on democracy. Socrates, the man who stood for intellectual honesty, the man who said the greatest wisdom lies in knowing how little you know. Plato, through his mouth, says that the man who has more knowledge than others should rule. Popper points out this is Plato's hubris arguing for a claim to the throne.
No matter how hard, inefficient, or frustrating democracy may seem at times, it is much better than concentration of power at the hands of few. Future work should be done in piecewise improvement of our social institutions, not in the perfect breeding of future tyrants.
The most important point of this book can be found right in the middle of it. According to Plato, the most important question in political philosophy is "Who should rule?", to which his answer is Philosopher Kings, aka the wisest should rule. At first glance, this indeed seems like the most important question to answer, since only after we decide the answer to this question can we decide what are the most important virtues. But power is like water and oxygen on unanodized iron: it corrupts. Power is what corrupted Anakin Skywalker, who was the "chosen one".
Political theory needs to be designed in such a fashion that the greatest number of people can benefit from it, making the question of who should rule not even a Top 5 question. Since power eventually corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts, we should be instead asking the question "How should we design our social institutions such that any person in power can do minimal harm to them?". Because leaders will come and go, but institutions will stand for a long time, and only through institutions can we have lasting changes.
Plato has definitely fallen in esteem for me after reading this book, also because he chose his teacher Socrates as the mouthpiece for his vile attack on democracy. Socrates, the man who stood for intellectual honesty, the man who said the greatest wisdom lies in knowing how little you know. Plato, through his mouth, says that the man who has more knowledge than others should rule. Popper points out this is Plato's hubris arguing for a claim to the throne.
No matter how hard, inefficient, or frustrating democracy may seem at times, it is much better than concentration of power at the hands of few. Future work should be done in piecewise improvement of our social institutions, not in the perfect breeding of future tyrants.
February 21, 2023
При ��сій моїй нелюбові до авторитарних систем думки, тоталітаризму і всього аналогічного у 20-21 століттях, не варто мабуть аж так спрощувати усю історію філософії та філософських ідей. Дуже зручна концепція, чітка лінія думки Поппера, але в житті воно так не буває, шоби лінійно і просто, і зручно.
Тому таке.
Тому таке.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews